I'm trying to decide if Primate and I should let you know who is posting beforehand, or whether we should just post. I'm leaning towards the former, but thought I'd open it up to discussion.
In the meantime...
Hi, QFT, kthxbai.Jeep wrote:Why don't you agree? I don't understand why any pro-town role would not use a list.
YES! Absolutely yes! The vote is the protown player's best weapon. It should virtuallyLogicticus wrote:Jeep, does that mean in a regular game that all pro town roles should always be voting?
If you want somebody to explain their list, ask them exactly why they have voted the way they have, in that order. Sometimes a player will not have the time to adequately explain his thoughts.Mgm wrote:If you use a list, you should do the legwork and explain why every single individual is on it and why each of them is in the position they're in. Otherwise, we're still clueless on voting reasons if it comes to a deadline lynch.
In that game, I felt it was important to post my gut thoughts/reaction to a situation, even though I didn't have the time to properly analyze the situation at the time. Still, I wanted to note my reactions so that I could refer to it later. Players did ask me about that post and my thoughts/actions (at least half a dozen times *rolls eyes*), and I explained them.Glork, C&H Mafia wrote:So... it seems that that Thok and I are literally the only players in the game who were absent throughout this entire thing. Truth be told, I don't remember what I was doing around that time, or what my activity level was on the rest of the site. I honestly have virtually no recollection of what happened. I can say that I would've jumped on Emp had I been paying more attention to the game at that point, but that's a claim that can't be validated in the least. What I *do* remember, however, is seeing a sudden burst of "OMG EMP IS SCUM!" And a series of votes and confirm votes. Having not properly grasped the situation, I believe (though I cannot say for certain) that my "MM, VitR, SV?" post was my reaction to thinking that Emp had been quick-wagoned due to the deadline, and that his lynch was probably a mislynch.
Failure. Adding players to the listCES wrote:Adding players to a list won't magically tell the town what people are thinking, Oman. If you want to know who someone suspects, just ask them, which is true of every game.
Right now, I can see from the current vote count that both you and DP are still (or once again) voting for Jeep, and I think that your behavior towards him early in the game was inexcusable. I want you to explain posthaste.Glorkspar wrote:Basically, the philosophy is that anything is better than nothing. A protown player should have little problem expressing his weighted suspicions. He should also have relatively little trouble expanding upon those suspicions when asked to. Mgm, DP:NOTHINGis stopping you from asking Jeep to explain his lists. Yet instead of doing that, you have both chosen to simply attack him for his chosen play. MajorFoS: DP, Mgm
I'm asking you toMgm wrote:And I already shared my opinion on early Condorcet voting.
Glorkspar wrote:
- People can see the progression of your suspicions. If you're town, you've got nothing to hide, so you should be able to respond to any inquiries as to why your suspicions have shifted or adjusted.
- An extension of the above point, forcing scum to constantly list all of their top suspects in order limits their ability to suddenly or strategically launch a new attack on a different player. While it does not completely eliminate this possibility ("I just did a re-read on Adele's posts, and I find her to be scummy for these reasons...."), it forces scums to keep up some similar threads of thought/suspicion from the very start of the day. It's *MUCH* easier to catch flip-flops and inconsistencies if we have repeated detailed lists of suspects.
I don't see the backpedaling here. I think that "Only scum who haven't found a strategic advantage for Concordet won't use Concordet early" is a different point from "discouraging others to use Concordet voting is scummy." I will grant that the two points areMgm wrote:a. He starts out by saying that there's no reason not to use the list unless you're scum who hasn't discussed it with his buddies, or not figured a way to use it to your advantage, but later changes it to saying that by saying that "I don't like using Condorcet voting" discourages other people from doing so - which isn't true and is change to what he first said. (aka backpeddeling)
How many times have you seen Glork, Fritz, CES, Simenon, Zindaras, or other players make votes without justifying them? Do you fly off the handle at them each and every time? (Glork's answer: I highly doubt that.) If not, why is Jeep's case different than, say, Fritzler back in Face-To-Face?Mgm wrote:b. Jeep claimed that votes only need to be justified if people want to follow you. Complete and utter bullocks. Votes need to be justified so you can use someone's vote to deduce their intentions.
Have you actually read my posts? Did you not read the lengthy explanations about how posting Concordet votes helps the town? Did you see my explanations on how not-posting them (and/or discouraging others to post them by calling them pointless or scummy) hurts the town?IH wrote:Do you agree? If so, why? Why is it scummy not to?
"Automatically and everytime"? No. Although I've noted your exaggeration/use of extremes.IH wrote:Yes I read, and I disagree. Especially in the beginning of the game, which this is mostly about. Not using a condorcent list is not scummy for sake of keeping things simple in the beginning.
I have only used it twice myself. This accomplishes the same thing as someone listing their scum list. Do you expect everyone to do that in every game automatically and everytime?
I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Most of the time, players have well-defined opinions of at least a couple of players near the end of days. And in general, I would speculate that not talking about a player means no-read or near-neutral (anywhere from slightly scummy to slightly protown). Scums may not have detailed, person-by-person lists, but they know the top suspicions, usually the biggest protown suspicions, and they can tell who is flying under the gun. When you stop and think about it, I don't think we're giving out hardly any more information than in a game with a normal voting system.Tamuz wrote:Is anyone worried that tiering innocence rather than to guilt will help scum line up a few targets that they would like to take out if a large amount of people find them innocentish rather than less guilty.
I say this to perhaps suggest we should take off our no-read/inconclusive/innocents from our Condorcet lists (ie lump all 3 of those in 1 category). I say this because from experience if people stress that they feel one player is innocent, and that player is, then scum are often more likely to hit them. Barring other circumstances.
That's exactly my point.foolinc wrote:It might be inexperience talking but wouldn't this limit information given to the town? It seems to me the best way to find scum is to be as honest as possible and as just as willing to share information. That gives us the best possible chance of the uniformed majority becoming informed before the mafia become the majority (ok, so the mafia will only get to 50% before winning, but screw it, I'm on a roll). So, when using this thought process it seems to me that tiering votes is a good thing for the town as well as the mafia.Gaspar wrote:I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Most of the time, players have well-defined opinions of at least a couple of players near the end of days. And in general, I would speculate that not talking about a player means no-read or near-neutral (anywhere from slightly scummy to slightly protown). Scums may not have detailed, person-by-person lists, but they know the top suspicions, usually the biggest protown suspicions, and they can tell who is flying under the gun. When you stop and think about it, I don't think we're giving out hardly any more information than in a game with a normal voting system.Tamuz wrote:Is anyone worried that tiering innocence rather than to guilt will help scum line up a few targets that they would like to take out if a large amount of people find them innocentish rather than less guilty.
I say this to perhaps suggest we should take off our no-read/inconclusive/innocents from our Condorcet lists (ie lump all 3 of those in 1 category). I say this because from experience if people stress that they feel one player is innocent, and that player is, then scum are often more likely to hit them. Barring other circumstances.
I don't really agree with Glork regarding much, but I feel like a dick moving his Condorcet this close to deadline, considering how much more involved he is than me, and we still haven't figured out a method to sort our votes. It's mostly a moot point anyway, considering I'm quite happy with a LML lynch, and that looks like what's happening here.-Dislike the wave against Condorcet voting during the early stages. Don't care that it's pointless, so is normal random voting, and sticking an extra few second suspicions in there really doesn't actually matter very much at all unless specifically doing it in a scummy way. Unless I don't get something, I don't see why it's any more suspicious than a normal vote. The only way I can really see is if you're attempting to vote in a fashion that will push the lynch of an unexpected candidate at the last minute, and if we're anywhere near the end of the lynch period without our candidates being clear, if not agreed upon, then we deserve the punishment.
-Skruffs wagon was understandable in the sense that skruffs doesn't really make a lot a sense a lot of the time, so I don't think it's surprising there would be a wave against him. I haven't really seen anything particularly scummy from him yet, though I have trouble reading skruffs' posts without it becoming :words:.
-LML's 'bluster' is annoying. I gather it's not that scummy coming from him, but things like that point against mos because 'we dont know his random vote is really random' are just stupid. (also, dislike pooky's point against this. Divestment of responsibility may be a fair criticism if Mos didn't do it every single game ever. I personally reckon thats why he did it. Pervasive habit.)
-Not a fan of Logiticus' #105.
-Like DP's #115.
-VitR's #151 is a bit of a stretch.
-Like foolinc's #158. Disagree with a few of the views, but there's thoughts behind it. I dislike a couple of his townie slots and one of his scummy slots.
-Adele's 178 is pretty much 100% wrong, and despite being technically possible, happens pretty much precisely never.
- Pooky's #199 makes me realise that I still have no idea the difference between pooky being scummy and pooky just being pooky.
- ...Then in #200, LML goes and agrees with it.
Given the nature of the game and the situation here, I'll chisel out a condorcet with Glork first chance I get.
I rejected that idea because if I had to believe you as town, it means the near-inevitable lynch of someone I think is town, and I don't want that, it's especially jarring when up until this point I'd had you as one of main suspects as scum (mainly for doing absolutely ridiculous things like changing your vote in a huge way based on one post made by another guy whilst absolutely failing to take into account anything else the guy has ever done). Sorry. Factor it up to me taking too long to me finding the lesser of the two evils.This seems incredibly scummy.
Why wouldn't there be a chance for people to counterclaim, if I were lying about my role (which i am not)? We're in D1, Primate. They can easily COUNTERCLAIM D2, right?
It seems obvious to me that you want there to still be a significant amount of heat on me in regards to my claim. Why is that?
Glorkspar here, though I can answer your request to Primspar because this is actually something that we had talked about over the weekend.LoudmouthLee wrote:(For all intents and purposes, since we are truly dealing with two different players, I hereby request the following:
Gaspar: Please state at the beginning of each of your posts who it is we're talking to.
Players: If you are directing a question or comment at Gaspar, please state which head of the twoheaded monster you are asking.. for instance: Glorkspar or Primspar
@Primspar: What makes you think that Cubs is innocent? You seem to have a level of feeling on this that makes me uncomfortable.
No. I am notLoudmouthLee wrote:Glorkspar wrote: 2) It assumes that Skruffs is a townie. This is most alarming for the people who first attacked Skruffs and then went after Cubs for defending Skruffs. That is one of the reasons that we came to suspect you as one of our top choices, LmL. I got a very distinct "I'm going to attack Skruffs while his wagon is big, but as it's fading, Cubs is becoming the chic second option, so I'll switch there."
Do you believe that a no lynch is better than a cubsfan lynch?
I know a rather large handful of players who would say "Information," and I don't disagree with that opinion. And I myself would say that No-Lynching D1 is at least on the Top 5 of theBattle Mage wrote:I'm merely trying to point out that there is no especial reason TO lynch now
Mmm, rolefishing.foolinc wrote:Did you get some kind of message that your action was blocked?Skruffs wrote:> : (
Somebody blocked me. That pisses me off.
Yes, definitely. Beginning of the game is the best time to get information by forcing players' hands. In my experience, most scumbaggos aren't terribly comfortable at the onset of the game... I've found that many of them take about half a day to settle into their roles, so hitting hard at the very BEGINNING of the game can be crucial.IH wrote:And I do the same, but do you do so in the beginning of the game?
Obviously I don't think he's protown -- he's second on my Condorcet list right now, and definitely one of my top suspects. However, A) Protown players in general shouldn't display their ignorance because it often reveals information about who they are (not); and B) On the chance that MgmIH wrote:1.If you think he's protown, why did you reveal this information? I'm unsure many would have connected MGM having a role from the book
Okay, let's attack this point-by-point:foolinc wrote:And today's discussions DID go into the process. Skruffs had his softclaim. The events between Mgm and IH also played a part in them getting bumped up (I was close to moving logicticus up as well), and the fact that LML is grouped with my likely townie group and not by himself inbetween that group and no lynch or even on the other side of the no lynch should have tipped you off that I have some suspisions about him, even with his role claim and the whole duel.
So what you're saying is that even though everyone has posted today, none of your other suspicions have shifted at all?Foolinc wrote:And the reason you are on the same level as Danni is because I did augment my old list and while you were moved up I did see any reason to move Danni.
CES already pointed out why this is flawed.Foolinc wrote:And no, I don't think that they were both killed by the same scum group, however I do believe that they both were on the right track in some fashion or else they wouldn't have been killed.
Erm... this logic is flawed.foolinc wrote:It's not the fact you said you were blocked. It's:foolinc wrote: I'm not a fan of the soft claim in general because it points out that you are a powerrole which will make you a target of scum, while not giving information to the town.
This looks bad to me.... the fact that you would come to the conclusion that Thesp is a lyncher with you as a target makes me think this is more OMGUS and less "you're scum reaching for an attack on another player."Dani Banani wrote:@Thesp,
i already gave my reasoning for bringing up the secret word... Mgm hit it right on the head when he saidyour attacks on me feel a little strained, almost like you're looking for a reason to make me look suspicious... i wouldn't be surprised if you're a lyncher w/ me as a target...Mgm wrote:He obviously had a secret word. It's quite hard to be the first to ask about them if you don't know they exist...
This is a much more reasonable defense than the "I think you're a lyncher" OMGUS that Dani provided.Mgm wrote:If that's true, why test the waters? Keeping his mouth shut would be by far the safer option if he didn't know it was safe to talk about it. What if scum was the only one with secret words? Asking about it would make it suicide.Thesp wrote:That's the thing - I think you're lying about your reasoning for bringing up the secret word. I agree I think you have a secret word. Was I unclear on that point? Askingin the way you didmakes a heck of a lot of sense if you're scum with a secret word, and afraid that other people might not have one - testing the waters to see what comes up.
....oh boy. This ought to be interesting.Mr. Grey wrote:MrBuddyLee replaces Adele.
...yet you fail to acknowledge that no more than two posts later, LmL points out to Primate that he claimed, and Primate acknowledges that he missed the claiming post.MBL wrote:gaspar wants LML dead, final answer (lee just claimed) fos: gaspar
In case you haven't noticed, Primate has been neither active nore attentive throughout this game. He posted his notes at my request, because I thought it was important to get both of our opinions out there (sortof like a mason group all wrapped into one role). I can't say for sure, but I would guess that Primate didn't even read the most recent posts because all he did was post his notes from Pages 1-10 and state that suspicion of LmL was one of the few things that he and I had agreed on.MBL wrote:gaspar, I added that line because i found it bizarre that primspar would miss such an important event 2-3 hours before he voted. i didn't miss the claim, i didn't miss the retraction ("oops"). i find it mildly scummy.
Mith's last game was mememeet, and that had 2 scumgroups plus a bunch of neutrals, as did the big copgame, so you can't really say that mith prefers one type of model based on that game. That said, mith does have that whole 'scumgroups have it too easy nowadays' thing going on, so either way is plausible. The nightkillings could also go either way at this point.Zindaras wrote:If you take a look at Verbose 2, mith's last game, you'll note that (unless I'm reading it wrong), there was an Italian Mafia, and the Italian Mafia were the only scumteam.
Do you mean the argument re: secret words? Yeah, I don't get why DB jumped to the conclusion of lyncher either. Thesp's argument wasn't especially vehement at all.mbl wrote:*snip* as does the "agreement" with Thespscum where the statement about lurkers could have EASILY been made without mentioning Thesp. Check it out.
Disagree. I've seen modpersonas that were protown. I don't see any harm in it, assuming the modpersona can't actually post, and can't do anything that capitalizes on his extra knowledge. (The one I saw interacted with a couple of roles in the game, could only vote for a person that another player told him to vote for, and couldn't post.)Gaspar wrote:You're kidding, right?
Presumably, Grey/mith knows the setup to the game. Are you arguing that, if Grey is has a role within the game, it would becompletely brokento have that role be protown. The role, as LmL has already explained, really only makes senes if it's an independent (Serial Killer, possibly Survivor) role. The fact that Xyzzy was the one poisioned gives usnobenefit right now. I cannot fathom that you'd want to keep alive a role that is almost certainly not protown.
My vote will be going right back onto you once this whole thing is sorted out.
I'd call it fairly peculiar, but I've got no idea what your idiolect is.LML wrote:Honestly, this is an incredibly odd line of questioning. I'm a teacher of English. Is "lacing into somebody" such an odd idiom?
Okay, Primate, in all fairness, I have also seen protown "modpersonae" before. MBL in Snakes on a Plane was the director and couldn't talk, but I think he got to see all night actions or something. But in my experiences, those kinds of roles are fairly rare. I still disagree with theGaspar wrote:Prim:
Disagree. I've seen modpersonas that were protown. I don't see any harm in it, assuming the modpersona can't actually post, and can't do anything that capitalizes on his extra knowledge. (The one I saw interacted with a couple of roles in the game, could only vote for a person that another player told him to vote for, and couldn't post.)Gaspar wrote:You're kidding, right?
Presumably, Grey/mith knows the setup to the game. Are you arguing that, if Grey is has a role within the game, it would becompletely brokento have that role be protown. The role, as LmL has already explained, really only makes senes if it's an independent (Serial Killer, possibly Survivor) role. The fact that Xyzzy was the one poisioned gives usnobenefit right now. I cannot fathom that you'd want to keep alive a role that is almost certainly not protown.
My vote will be going right back onto you once this whole thing is sorted out.
I mean, hell, I'm just about to run NPC mafia, where I take on over a dozen personas, so I'm definitely assuring you that it ispossibleto come up with these things as town.
Do you feel that Mr. Grey's inclusion in a Condorcet list was a mistake on the mod's part? If so, I wouldTalitha wrote:The Mr Grey thing is a silly distraction, IMO.
TheTalitha wrote:How can Mr Grey's inclusion in a condorcet list be a mistake on the mod's part? The players make the lists, right? I'm not even sure when Mr Grey first popped up, but I assume a PLAYER included him, and Mr Grey, conscientious mod that he is, simply followed the player's wishes.
I know the question wasn't really directed at me, but are you implying that if you were town and you had found a possible SK, youTalitha wrote:If I were scum, Gaspar, and I thought i had found a possible SK, or someone that I could convince others was an SK, I would be following it like a hound. A bit like you are.
FOS: Gaspar