elvis 31 wrote:We decide together who our two top suspects are and force them to duel (and anybody who refuses to duel will be auto-lynched by the town via some townie who volunteers to duel them -- an enforcer perhaps nominated by the town). We should only have two scummy people dueling each other. No townie should take it upon themselves to duel someone they think is scum
This is fine, but we don't need an "enforcer" or any of that crap. Just go with what feels right. If someone refuses a duel, however, that should and would be a serious red flag.
elvis 31 wrote:But if we see extra death after a duel, or something funny going on, then we know who to blame.
This is a good point. I hadn't considered this.
elvis 38 wrote:I think a lot of that really depends on the circumstances of who is up for duel and how scummy I think they are.
Right. You're making too much of this, hon. Just go with the flow. Things will work out right if we all take thoughtful actions and make no hasty decisions. The only thing we need to emphasize is about players not committing to a duel prematurely.
---
RF 39 wrote:We almost certainly want to duel as much as possible considering that the likelihood of empowering scum is less and there doesn't seem like a large difference in having us pseudo vote for top two scum rather than TOP SCUM OF THE YEAR THAT MUST DIE and it'd probably give more information than just having a single flip. One flip can be useful for analysis but two flips give double the information imo. It'd also be useful for seeing which people push one but not the other an seeing their logic as to why and the like. I'm having difficulty following why it wouldn't be a good idea to start off on the position that we
should
use it and then adjust as more information comes out.
Yes, this is solid. I just think, you know, you still have to see what happens during the game. Just be cool and act natural.
---
AGM 46 wrote:and/or if they are incredibly sure on a read.
No, we have a serious disagreement here. I don't agree with this. I don't care if it's DGB herself, one person should not be able to do this on a whim. If someone wants to duel, then they need the town's backing, plain and simple. Otherwise I seriously question their motivations. I mean, we'll see what happens, but that's how I'm looking at it right now.
AGM 46 wrote:Ultimately, my point is not that people who are obvtown should just go around yelling, "LOL IMMA KILL ALL TEH SCUMZ"
No, I get what you're saying, but I think you're giving yourself room to consistently throw duels out if you feel is necessary regardless of what others have to say about it. I don't like that.
---
Juls 51 wrote:Pre-Vote
: Amrun
Yeah, that did seem a little odd, but I think she was just being cute.
---
elvis 52 wrote:I am an aggressive player and I love fast bold moves and games. I'm all in. But we have to think about what we're doing too. I have been in other games with similar mechanics that result in more than one player dead each day (like dynamite or something), and if you don't watch your arse you can lose a bunch of people in nothing flat and sometimes not have enough to go off in terms of getting other player's opinions. Then you're really in the hole, and scum are laughing. I'm not sure I want a double death on D1. I want to see a flip before committing to that amount of risk.
Whatever we do: I want every player to weigh in on who they want to duel and and why, if they want two dead or one, and who they want to lynch and why. We need that info to stack up over the days.
And no fucking way should any town player challenge anybody to a duel without a majority agreement. No fucking way. It is anti-town to act on something irreversible like deciding the duel for the town. We will get much more info if everyone decides together.
This. All of it. This is required reading for all players.
---
AGM 54 wrote:Imagine the following: you and I are both confirmed town (by cop or something). We take a straw poll for who should duel and it comes out as follows:
Two obvscum players (5) - Obvtown, good scumhunter, good scumhunter, AlmasterGM, elvis_knits
Two people who we think are town, but for some reason these 7 people think are scum (7) - obvscum, obvscum, lurker, lurker, VI, null, null
My position: Fuck the straw poll, we're lynching the obvscum.
Your position: Welp, I disagree ... but I guess we'll go with the majority.
Obviously there are considerations to be made. Nothing is absolute. That's not the argument, and I think you know that.
Plus, we're no longer talking about AGM gets it in his mind that X is sure to flip scum, so he duels before he sleeps on it. You're saying that's fine because you were incredibly sure on your read. That's just not going to work out, bud.
---
Gamma 57 wrote:Mostly because if I start a duel for a LIMITED TIME ONLY (read:today) it doesn't end the day.
That's good of you to claim. You're given duel priority as far as I'm concerned. Now we just have to worry about the other 18 people, but at least you're on record of saying this early.
Gamma 57 wrote:Aaaaaaanyway.
Vote:elvis_knits
---
Vi 61 wrote:Maxous 53... Fluff levels significant. Action desired.
Voting... Maxous (L-10)
I can run with this.
Viputer, please input my
vote: Maxous
.
---
AGM 68 wrote:This. So much this.
I don't see how anyone is strawmanning you when you said, and I quote, "if [a player] is incredibly sure on a read [then they have authority to duel]"
---
CSL 69 wrote:Only idiots charge in headfirst...
I don't really see mykonian as advocating this. I think he was just being kind of tongue-in-cheek.
---
Max 75 wrote:Alright let's go through this..
Let's say for example we the town determine Amrun and Juls to be the two most likely players to be mafia. We tell them to duel each-other and we will kill them both. If they don't do this we will lynch them one after the other.
Alas, it turns out Juls is town. If she calls this duel then she would be allowing herself as town to die without people lynching her (this is the equivalent of self-hammering as town) and therefore we get little info out of the lynch/death as opposed to analysing who voted to be her lynched.
That is why it is actually a bad move as town.
This is a fair point, but what do you say to the idea that voting "no winner" of said duel is, in effect, like voting both players? So, I mean, we're still getting information out of that.
Max 77 wrote:However the problem I would have with 2 'scummy looking' people dueling is we would be giving the winner a power-up. Plus the hassle of trying to get them to duel each-other in the first place if they suspect they are going to lose.
Eh, not the point doesn't sound as fair. You're forcing your argument here.
---
AGM 78 wrote:This is a pretty non-concrete stance on the issue. Majority rules except when somebody strongly disagrees with the majority? That's not majority rules.
Scumbucket with you.
This is right, and Toast's explanation has left me unfulfilled.
Unvote
;
vote: ToastyToast
---
Gamma 80 wrote:Personally I don't think all this is actually helpful but maybe some other people can get some reads out of this mess.
I am. This is great insight into how everyone is thinking.
Gamma, I think, like, what you're doing is good. You told us about your duel ability and aren't jumping to the gun to duel someone. That's perfectly fine. Of course, we're only a couple of pages in, but I think you get my point. This is how duels should be reached. A player says they want to have a duel above all others, the town weighs the merits of that request, and, if we see it as beneficial, then they may duel someone scummy. That's perfectly fine.
What I would have an issue with is if you just said, "Look, I have a power for today only with my duel. I choose to
Duel: X
". That would be completely wrong.
---
Juls 83 wrote:OK, I have an idea, it's probably dumb but it's a thought nonetheless. Why not play this game as normal. Then, if you are town, and you are about to be mislynched and there is no way to save yourself, you should Duel the person you have the biggest town read on so that in your death, we empower a townie. If someone hammers then they are auto-scummy. If someone refuses to L-1 duel, then an elected townie can force a duel. This should help us empower town as often as possible. Anyone who hammers is scummy. Anyone who duels without being elected is scummy. Anyone who duels someone else and flips scum should be heavily considered as scummy but not guaranteed (scum could wifom it).
Oh, wow. Even if someone shoots this down (I can't think of a reason why this wouldn't work), this is good thinking. I really like this idea.
---
ML 89 wrote:C-Worls 81 looks like a vote park with an easy transition to a any forming wagon. Dislike.
Agreed.
ML 89 wrote:Lu Bu
Do not persue Lu Bu!
This is the extent of my theme knowledge.
---
Grey 93 wrote:Please read some other DK games before voting him
This. Be very thoughtful with a potential DK vote.
---
RF 99 wrote:"Toasty is suspect for coming up with the possibility of multiple scumteams"
"There are possibilities for scumteams and there's probably a serial killer!"
Vote: Magister Ludi
If he has knowledge of the theme, why not be upfront about it?
---
Toast 120 wrote:I do think he's being significantly more under the radar than I'm used to.
The game has been open for, like, 24 hours.
Toast 120 wrote:Are you suggesting that there is a connection between myself and Ludi? Please explain. I can't comment on a vote with a simple declaration.
He explained an issue with you earlier, and I have the same one. You're saying one thing but meaning another.
---
Iec 129 wrote:Ludi is assuming 3 scum per team and ruling out the possibility of 4; otherwise, his comment about Wu would make no sense. O_O
Inside information, etc.
Are you really voting him based on theme related issues? How am I supposed to analyze this at all?
---
Toast 138 wrote:Well, from the knowledge I do have of the flavor, the fact that there are multiple families, all with different goals, suggest that our town will have more than one going against them. Given that this is a large theme, multiple scum teams is not rare. Also, a large without 2 scum teams tends to have some 3rd parties. The game being about warfare b/w families, I find find a mafia-sk setup to be less likely. Of course, this cannot be known until we get night results.
See, I agree with this and I think this is was ML was getting at. Why do you have a problem with ML when I see this comment as right in line with what he said in post 89?
