Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[MattP]

Hey, big favor, can I please stay around long enough to get my conversation with Charter, and with Yos too in a perfect world, before I'm lynched? Regardless if I had a shitty early game, I generally am ok at scumhunting and I would like the chance to do so so that I didn't completely fial at this game

[MattP]

Unvote

[Tierce]

> two pseudo-votes
> AtE like there's no tomorrow omg I'm being lynched

[MattP]

I am not saying don't lynch me right now, I am saying don't lynch me until I actually get to do something, that in no way is AtE to get you to stop wanting to lynch me. In fact, I IMPLORE you to not let it affect your read on me, and rather look at the statement from a completely objective perspective of whether or not you are willing to grant me time to attempt to actually do something otherwise I feel that I was a completely wasted, and overall anti-town slot for my outburst. Therefore, I would like some time to try to do something that can be examined after I am lynched. Ok?

[Kinetic]

I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.

Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.

It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?

Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.

Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:

1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.

We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.

I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
The killers should be the ones voting.
Votes will be tracked.
Votes without reasons should be subject to the most scrutiny.

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

[Kinetic]

I don't know if I'd be up for a Pere lynch right now, but I am starting to come around to MattP. Who the fuck is this person playing on his account?

unvote; vote MattP

[MattP]

Seriously?

[MattP]

I'm obviously in a very shitty position, and I am trying to do SOMETHING to try to in some way rectify the situation. What exactly do you think I should be doing right now as town? Whether or not you have a scumread on me, actually consider for a second from a TOWN PoV at this point what I should do

1) I DID do something that is inevitably at some point in this game going to get me lynched, I've practically completely fucked my chance to get to endgame, and therefore I am a completely anti-town player so I am asking to try to do something not anti-town before I die. Regardless of whether you do or do not consider that AtE it's not baseless, it is actually backed up by a fact that I have failed my duty as a town member and would like to, in some semblance, redeem myself

2) I have been waiting this entire time, rather patiently, to talk to charter and have been constantly denied of that privilege. In fact, charter continues and continues to prolong the amount of time he needs to get back to the game, and it seems like I'm never going to have a chance to talk to him because of this, which you have to understand that from a TOWN perspective that would be incredibly frustrating

3) I regret my vote on Tierce and I am at a point where just pretending I still think she's scum would be less detrimental than removing my vote, but I also believe that as a town member I do have the responsibility to be truthful in my reads (which does match my meta and game theory) and therefore I unvoted. This does make sense from me as town

I am asking for one favor. IDGAF if you lynch me after I get to do this thing I've been waiting for for a week. This is not AtE. I think I deserve the right to do this and if I get lynched prior to having that ability I will be upset.

[MattP]

This is a stupid-ass argument from me but I'll say it anyway, I did not edit or spend time on the above post obviously as I wrote it in 6 minutes. It therefore must have been genuine to some degree or I'm very good at bullshitting very quickly. I do feel this way, and because there is a genuine tone I wish you would at least for a moment entertain the idea of me as town just fucking up really bad and therefore give me the chance to talk to charter, because obviously in the past good has come from me talking to people in games and it makes NO sense to deny me of that

[MattP]

Tierce, if you like meta so much look at SoL Invitational where I was lynched and see my tone prior to my impending lynch and tell me it's not different from now (I haven't looked at SoL for months but I emotionally feel very similar to how I felt then)

[Yosarian2]

Nothing interesting happened on page 8.

And you knew that in less than 2 minutes?

(shrug) Page 8-9 was:

LLD agrees with my case on you

Kinetic is suggesting ways to deal with possible time issues I discussed (which might not be as bad as I expected)

ZD defends Matt for weak reasons

ZD attacks Kinetic again for bad reasons (basically just "Kinetic is discussing game theory stuff")

Kinetic continues to attack ZD

Back and fourth with Kinetic and ZD, mostly repeating arguments arleady made

Tierce would rather lynch Matt then ZD

A lot more back and fouth between Kinetic and Zd

Not really anything in there I wanted to comment on at the moment, since none of it changed my opinions on anything, although I will look back on it once we get a scum flip or two.

And, yeah, since you're so worried about time; it only took me maybe 5 minutes to type up a summery of all of page 8 and 9; reading it without doing that went a lot faster then that.

[Yosarian2]

1) I DID do something that is inevitably at some point in this game going to get me lynched, I've practically completely fucked my chance to get to endgame

Interesting. You talking about the Tierce OMGUS here?

[MattP]

You can call it OMGUS, I would call it a completely unnecessary and unfounded outburst

[Kinetic]

You have a bit more of the fire I expect from Matt, but at the same time you said it yourself, the earliest reads in a new game are usually the most indicative of scum.

unvote

I'm curious what you have a hard on for charter for...

[PeregrineV]

^^^ Would also lynch this. ^^^

Can we get MattP Today and PereV Tomorrow?

Remember that whole "reason" thing? You can start giving them now if you really feel that way.

[PeregrineV]

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.

[Kinetic]

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.

You're right, we all have rage.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

[Kinetic]

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.

You're right, we all have rage.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

[PeregrineV]

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

There does have to be a catch. So insisting it's played and setup exactly like the last game (for me WiH3, for you, WiH2) makes less sense.

I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

Of course I don't have a compelling reason, other than 5 is less than half of the total players, and can be majority scum.

Why would people unvote? Just to leave them floating at less than maximum hp?

[Tierce]

^^^ Would also lynch this. ^^^

Can we get MattP Today and PereV Tomorrow?

Remember that whole "reason" thing? You can start giving them now if you really feel that way.

The absence of explanation should not be perceived as accidental, dahling.

[Zdenek]

We definitely don't want to wait too long to lynch, but arbitrarily reducing the lynch threshold to 5 is a horrible idea because it will significantly reduce the value of vote count analysis and somewhat player's accountability for their votes (a la, I was voting for pressure and a couple of people piled on or i was V/LA and people piled on, and things of that ilk). We should aim to get majorities, and only consider reduced thresholds when it seems necessary, for instance we probably don't have to go faster than every two weeks.

Also, there is a very, very good reason for town to claim rage; if town claims whenever they use rage, then it makes it a lot harder for scum to dump rage for surprise daykills, and easier to catch them if they try.

People keep repeating this. I still have no clue why people think it, but evidently we can't have a reasonable discussion about it because then the scum might figure out what's going on, so I'm just going to say that later on, you're going to have to explain it.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

Kinetic is continuing his approach of calling everyone who disagrees with him on strategy scummy. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I wish Peregrine would talk about some other stuff, but so it goes.

[PeregrineV]

I wish Peregrine would talk about some other stuff, but so it goes.

Me too, but since it would mostly start out with "Anyone with less posts than me is probably scum", I'm willing to wait.

[Kinetic]

Must. Resist. Urge. to. Hurt. Scum.

Vote: ZD

[Tierce]

Me too, but since it would mostly start out with "Anyone with less posts than me is probably scum", I'm willing to wait.

Okay, let's throw you a bone. It's Nightless, I can be as obvTown as I want to~

How about doing anything that does not involve theory? You clearly have time in your V/LA to read these posts over and mull on the implications, so I don't see how you can't take 5 minutes to read someone in context and in ISO and form reads.

There is nothing. Nothing at all.

All you have talked about so far is theory

, and I find it hard to believe that a Town player would have literally no opinion worth noting of the situations that have since arisen which are actually relevant to

finding scum

. There is no point in deciding when we start Hurting a player if you don't show interest in Hurting

anyone at all

.

"But Tierce, I totally have reads and they are awesome and stuff!" Right. Show me.

[PeregrineV]

Me too, but since it would mostly start out with "Anyone with less posts than me is probably scum", I'm willing to wait.

Okay, let's throw you a bone. It's Nightless, I can be as obvTown as I want to~

How about doing anything that does not involve theory? You clearly have time in your V/LA to read these posts over and mull on the implications, so I don't see how you can't take 5 minutes to read someone in context and in ISO and form reads.

There is nothing. Nothing at all.

All you have talked about so far is theory

, and I find it hard to believe that a Town player would have literally no opinion worth noting of the situations that have since arisen which are actually relevant to

finding scum

. There is no point in deciding when we start Hurting a player if you don't show interest in Hurting

anyone at all

.

"But Tierce, I totally have reads and they are awesome and stuff!" Right. Show me.

MattP is scum. Just ask you. Also agree with all your other reads.

What other non-Tierce situations have arisen that you would like my opinion on?