Mini 870: Melee mafia. (Mod Abandoned)

[TonyMontana]

5 minutes and just removed unneeded words. I'm pretty sure if I started paraphrasing I could cut it in half from the second quote, but you get the point.

God bless you, son. -.- Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed how much smoke Kast was blowing -.-

[Kast]

Which did not contradict my position that we should all vote for one lynch candidate.

-The question was whether we should vote for a lynch candidate. Voting to emphasize your suspicions IS voting for your lynch candidate. You're trying to split hairs and argue semantics here.

-Please stop the ad hom. Also, you didn't answer the question.
If you believed we should not prohibit PMs, why didn't you say that?

[Kast]

-You still haven't explained how voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

[drowmage]

Congrats on your 1000th post.

Explain how my post can be construed as a straw man. I did not attribute any of your posts as advocating replacement of scumhunting with game mechanics. From context, I directly stated agreement with your assessment of the current mechanics discussion as appropriate.

First of all I wasn't asking you, I was asking Kirby. Stop blindly defending him because it won't bode well for you in the end regardless of which way he flips. It's either going to look like you knew for a fact that he was town or you were chainsaw-defending your scum partner.

Secondly it was a rhetorical request designed to illustrate a point: There are no established practices for when a discussion like this should come to an end.

The more important aspects of my posts have been

A) There's people who need to be caught up still
B) He's trying to derail a productive conversation
C) His insistence on arguing with people in thread isn't helping him look any more townish
D) umoms

[TonyMontana]

Which did not contradict my position that we should all vote for one lynch candidate.

-The question was whether we should vote for a lynch candidate. Voting to emphasize your suspicions IS voting for your lynch candidate. You're trying to split hairs and argue semantics here.

-Please stop the ad hom. Also, you didn't answer the question.
If you believed we should not prohibit PMs, why didn't you say that?

Splitting hairs IS arguing semantics

I don't get the question. Prohibit PMs?

-You still haven't explained how voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

Why should I explain something i never stated?
I'm gonna save you the trouble and quote myself:

"I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy. "

First off, english is not my first language, thus "feasible" (which i meant, obv) was not the right word to use. Simplified, I meant "good strategy" (for winning)
More to the point, I was talking about the strategy, not voting, or voting for lynch candidate.

[Yosarian2]

You make yourself look bad through your apparent hypocrisy.

"Hypocrisy"? Really? How has he been a hypocrite? Just looks like he's trying to start scumhunting, just like he said everyone should do.

[Snow_Bunny]

Mechanics discussions are always helpful and I don't understand why Kirby and Snow_Bunny are quite suddenly trying to put a stop to it. I especially don't like how Kirby is grasping at straws for scum tells. Wouldn't mind seeing him go at this point. Him arguing with Tajo seems particularly over-defensive to me.

I asked it to stop as it isn't getting us anywhere. Speculation is not good, imo, and thus, I'd prefer to focus on actual scumhunting.

Mechanics discussions should not last 7 pages.

Says who? Where is that written down? Show me the wiki article or link some meta that sets a precedent as to what governs the length of a mechanics discussion. This is a rather complex setup, so I'm happy to sit here and discuss the topic ad nauseam so that everyone in-thread is on the same page.

We also have a limited time (3 days) for the discussion phase. If we don't start some serious discussion now, I bet that things will go crazy in the melee phase. Crazy as in some people attacking others out of bad reasons (like, omgus, anger, etc). And thus, I'd prefer to scumhunt rather than keep talking about mechanics.

Another reason I want to put a stop to the focus on mechanics is that I play better without talking about them. Once people start dropping some actual scumtells, my play will become much smoother.

So..... You're basically saying that you need someone to claim scum in order to start playing good? That's your scumhunting method? And I considered myself bad at it... ¬_¬ I really didn't like this post. Trying to justify yourself lamely. And, paired with your reaction against Tajo's attack, I'm getting a scum vibe from you. I'd vote for you, but there's also Tony, who contradicted himself, and who shows a scum play in general (trying to always go with majority).

I can see a Kirby-Tony-???? scum team with Kirby trying to early bus Tony.

Vote: Kirby

Oh, btw, let's keep a record:

~The Unofficial Vote Count~

Kirby (2) - Tajo, Bunny

[Snow_Bunny]

Let me know if any of this is inaccurate or if you've changed your position on anything:

Positions

Snow_Bunny- We should vote/All players should be free to attack anyone (rogues)/We should not punish rogues/?/?

Just a clarification on my position. Players should be free to attack anyone, as long as they have a valid case. Otherwise, there should be a punishment. But I don't see it as a punishment. I see it more like "why would that player attack everyone else without a case? Must be scum! Kill him!" or something like that.

Suppose this situation:
-Player A finds player B scummy.
-Town finds player C scummy, but B as well. C is scummiest.
-Player A doesn't find C scummy.
-Town can attack C, while player A attacks C.
-This is valid enough for me.

Now, suppose this situation:
-Player A finds player B scummy.
-Town finds player C scummy.
-Town finds player B townie.
-Player A doesn't find C scummy.
-Town can attack C, while player A attacks C.
-This is valid enough for me to think that player A is scummy.

As someone said, if you have a case, which is strong, valid and people like it, then go ahead even if town doesn't. But if you say things like "omg die scum!!111 super baseless omgus attack!!" then there's something scummy in that, and I'd support your death.

[Kast]

@TM-
-To be clear, you acknowledge that you were splitting hairs/arguing semantics but prefer that only one of the two phrases being applied.

Prohibit means stop something from happening. Some players said that nobody should be allowed to submit any actions by PM (ie. We should prohibit PM'ed actions).

I asked everyone to for their opinions on this. You said attacks should not be allowed by PM. If you thought that non-attack actions should be allowed by PM, then why didn't you say that?

-

voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

These are the same things. Infeasible = not feasible.

You are avoiding answering. Why did you think "voting for a lynch candidate" would not be good?

[drowmage]

Up until this point I haven't seen a whole lot of speculation. What I've seen is discussion of how to use the game mechanics to best benefit the town as well as an honest attempt to bring the stragglers onto the same page as everyone else. Anyone attempting to destroy that is not acting in the best interests of the town.

The general feel for the direction in which the discussion has gone seems to be "don't attack without a consensus" so the notion that if we take too long to discuss things is a fallacy if we can simply chose not to attack during a Melee phase.

Speculation is not good, imo, and thus, I'd prefer to focus on actual scumhunting.

1 post later:

Suppose this situation:

*snip*

Now, suppose this situation

If you're going to call people out for not scum hunting, the least you could do is make an effort to disguise your own hypocrisy. In the space of one post you just rendered your own argument completely moot.

[Kast]

@drowmage-
-Defending isn't inherently scummy or anti-town.
-My post which you call a straw man is not a defense of anything except continuation of mechanics discussion. You are misreading, paranoid, or both.

There are no established practices for when a discussion like this should come to an end.

This is misleading. When any discussion prevents town from catching scum, it should come to an end. In our case, the discussion is not doing that.

@SB-
-Whoever is first in the Melee Phase can wait indefinitely. There are no deadlines, hence no need to end discussion.

[Kast]

@SB-
Also to be clear, I did not mean to imply that any of {chamber, Grover, Snow_bunny, TM} are advocating rogues without reasons. Everyone (both pro- and anti- rogue camps) has asked for good reasons for votes/attacks.

[Yosarian2]

The general feel for the direction in which the discussion has gone seems to be "don't attack without a consensus" so the notion that if we take too long to discuss things is a fallacy if we can simply chose not to attack during a Melee phase.

That's actually a good point; the day dosn't end until someone is lynched, so if no one at all attacks during the melee phase, town loses nothing at all.

The problem here is that if some townies don't attack and all the scum do, it's probably bad for us in the long run.

[drowmage]

I've got little experience with damage-based setups like this; however, we'll be able to tell who is attacking who, right?

If that's the case then

The problem here is that if some townies don't attack and all the scum do, it's probably bad for us in the long run.

I'd tend to think if the scum attack and the town don't then it would become obvious who should be lynched.

[Kast]

@Yosarian2-
-I won't submit any action until we have a consensus. I expect others will do the same. Melee Phase may go through a few turns from rogues, but it will not run through willy-nilly.

@Another PoV why we should only attack a majority candidate-
-If we ONLY attack the majority candidate, then we reduce this to a standard game where townies have a small chance of surviving the mafia NK and scum have a much smaller chance of diverting lynches away from themselves.

[TonyMontana]

@TM-
-To be clear, you acknowledge that you were splitting hairs/arguing semantics but prefer that only one of the two phrases being applied.

No, i was just critiquing your tendency of using to many words.

Voting to emphasize one's suspicions is not synonymous with choosing a lynch candidate through voting.

Prohibit means stop something from happening. Some players said that nobody should be allowed to submit any actions by PM (ie. We should prohibit PM'ed actions).

I asked everyone to for their opinions on this. You said attacks should not be allowed by PM. If you thought that non-attack actions should be allowed by PM, then why didn't you say that?

I said attacks should be posted in thread. I believe I also said later that it's moot because attacks will be plainly visible to everyone.
As for me having to clarify that I then didn't see it necessary to prohibit non attack PMs: *Now* who is splitting hairs?

-

voting for lynch candidates would be infeasible.

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

These are the same things. Infeasible = not feasible.

You are avoiding answering. Why did you think "voting for a lynch candidate" would not be good?

You failed at getting my point. which had nothing to do with the word "feasible"

In any case:
I thought it would turn scumhunting stale, if everyone was required to follow majority rule in combat, as scum would have no choice but to follow, thus making sniffing out scum based on melee actions impossible. Essentially leaving all scumhunting to the 3 discussion days.

We are allowed to discuss in melee phase, but if we're supposed to decide the lynch in the first 3 days, what is there to talk about?

Now, after learning that damage done in battle is permanent, I of course do not think we can be willy nilly about damage done, but i still don't support blanket punishment on dissent from whatever majority decides.

[Yosarian2]

I've got little experience with damage-based setups like this; however, we'll be able to tell who is attacking who, right?

For regular attacks, (not special abilities) we should all be attacking in public.

Also, we probably will know who's turn it is by the initiive role, although I'm not entirely sure if thay'll be public information or not.

Plus, there was this rather ambiguous statement from the mod.

If a player would see an action being made, then the mod will dictate to the players what they see, just as a DM mitigates the action in a game of DnD.

So, I'm not really sure, but I would suspect that we usually will, unless someone has a special feat that prevents us from seeing what they're doing.

[Yosarian2]

On a side note, I get confused every time Kast uses the word "Rouges" that way since this is a D&D based theme game, heh.

[Grover]

Welcome to the game Drowmage!

Says who? Where is that written down? Show me the wiki article or link some meta that sets a precedent as to what governs the length of a mechanics discussion. This is a rather complex setup, so I'm happy to sit here and discuss the topic ad nauseam so that everyone in-thread is on the same page.

I think I'm starting to wrap my head around it. This is a dynamic I have no experience with and I'm working hard to get it. Sorry if it's stalling the game.

Kirby: I'm finding it hard to get any reads on anyone at this point. We have been talking mostly about the dynamics of the game (which has been a huge help to me at this point). It's hard to find Scumminess in theory discussions. Weak cases are what come from this.

[Grover]

I've got little experience with damage-based setups like this; however, we'll be able to tell who is attacking who, right?

If that's the case then

The problem here is that if some townies don't attack and all the scum do, it's probably bad for us in the long run.

I'd tend to think if the scum attack and the town don't then it would become obvious who should be lynched.

Oh and btw, who's alt are you?

[drowmage]

no alts here. Just a horny little school girl that's fond of logic puzzles.

[Kirbyoshi]

First off, english is not my first language, thus "feasible" (which i meant, obv) was not the right word to use. Simplified, I meant "good strategy" (for winning)
More to the point, I was talking about the strategy, not voting, or voting for lynch candidate.

So, basically what you meant to say was, "I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will be a good strategy"? To me, it means the same, just maybe your feelings aren't quite as strong, but it conveys the same message.

We also have a limited time (3 days) for the discussion phase. If we don't start some serious discussion now, I bet that things will go crazy in the melee phase. Crazy as in some people attacking others out of bad reasons (like, omgus, anger, etc). And thus, I'd prefer to scumhunt rather than keep talking about mechanics.

The first person in the melee phase can wait indefinitely to attack. So really, we (specifically, the person who is first in initiative) decide when discussion ends. And no, that's not my scumhunting strategy. My strategy is to put people in positions where they have to explain themselves, which Tony is doing horrible at right now. However, there's very little to explain when all we talk about is game mechanics. You also forgot my vote on Tony.

If you're going to call people out for not scum hunting, the least you could do is make an effort to disguise your own hypocrisy. In the space of one post you just rendered your own argument completely moot.

I fail to see how.

We are allowed to discuss in melee phase, but if we're supposed to decide the lynch in the first 3 days, what is there to talk about?

We keep our own voting system. Therefore, we decide when it ends, and we can still be voting in the melee phase if we have to.

[Kirbyoshi]

Kirby: I'm finding it hard to get any reads on anyone at this point. We have been talking mostly about the dynamics of the game (which has been a huge help to me at this point). It's hard to find Scumminess in theory discussions. Weak cases are what come from this.

This is basically what I have been trying to say. Only weak cases come out of discussions like that, I don't believe in not voting, so I voted for someone based on a weak case. I don't see how it's that hard to understand.

[Yosarian2]

no alts here. Just a horny little school girl that's fond of logic puzzles.

Ever hear of "lynch all liars"?

[Kirbyoshi]

no alts here. Just a horny little school girl that's fond of logic puzzles.

Great, now I have this intense desire to meet drow...