Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[Tierce]

Also agree with all your other reads.

Oh?

Which ones?

[PeregrineV]

Also agree with all your other reads.

Oh?

Which ones?

All of the ones where you gave a reason that wasn't based on game theory.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Back, reading

[Tierce]

Also agree with all your other reads.

Oh?

Which ones?

All of the ones where you gave a reason that wasn't based on game theory.

That does not answer my question in any manner. Stop dodging. Which reads of mine do you agree with?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I think I need to point out that in the last WiH game, Magua (scum) was the one in charge of the vote count and was considered very obv town for it.

I had a death warrant on the head of whomsoever tried to take that role for themselves this game. Especially given that it's the only real content PV has posted...

Yeah I'm ok with killing Matt (who has mysteriously disappeared since being pushed) or PV right now.

[MattP]

How have I disappeared? I posted within the last hour. I actually, and maybe it will come as a SURPRISE to you, don't enjoy playing with you whatsoever in games so try to simmer down your abrasiveness just a little bit as a favor to me

[MattP]

last 5 hours*

[MattP]

One main thing has even happened since I've posted, which is Tierce pushing Kinetic on something I don't yet know about, which hasn't even resolved yet. What do you think was worth me responding to in the last 5 hours or are you just dense?

[Tierce]

Where am I pushing on Kinetic?

Skim moar.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Actually, I just thought it was obvious (and I might as well explain it, I'm sure the scum have already figured all this out).

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

[Kinetic]

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.

Actually, I just thought it was obvious (and I might as well explain it, I'm sure the scum have already figured all this out).

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-

[MattP]

Where am I pushing on Kinetic?

Skim moar.

PV I JUST SAID THE WRONG NAME

[Zdenek]

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

I've kind of figured that we can just do this whether we all claim everything about rage or not, and then work out after the fact whether or not whoever gets caught is lying.

We don't claim anything, then we decide that we want to kill someone, so we get someone scummy to use their all their accumulated rage.

At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.

If we've all claimed, then scum know roughly what they need to do in order to lie.

[Tierce]

Where am I pushing on Kinetic?

Skim moar.

PV I JUST SAID THE WRONG NAME

You're not stupid. You're just super skimming. Look at PV and tell me why he's scum.

[MattP]

As for PV

pedit: I actually have a LOT of good townreads right now and if I pushed anyone it would be really rough and counterproductive,

so I'm just going to wait until the lil sheep I'm spying comes back to graze in the fiery pits of hell.

This was in reference to PV's first post, which gave me a scumvibe mainly before of the fluffy non-productive way of it.

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.

This also seems very postured and too dumbed down / stiff, specifically the bolded parts. I don't see a SLIP like you supposedly see

I don't like when he calls me scum out of the blue, but I don't like it any less than LLD's comment, which I'm very curious to genuinely see her response to my post to her.

[Yosarian2]

And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-

It's all right. We were never going to trap them with something that obvious. But if we can screw up their ability to make kills, we're way ahead of the game.

[Kinetic]

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

I've kind of figured that we can just do this whether we all claim everything about rage or not, and then work out after the fact whether or not whoever gets caught is lying.

We don't claim anything, then we decide that we want to kill someone, so we get someone scummy to use their all their accumulated rage.

At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.

If we've all claimed, then scum know roughly what they need to do in order to lie.

So... set a giant time-bomb stall tactic for later in the game, which probably won't catch scum, instead of just simply having everyone claim rage if they use it... which would accomplish the same thing.

And it isn't like we can't force someone to dump rage and then debate about it later if we keep a simple rule, if you use rage you claim it...

We aren't claiming when we ACCUMULATE rage. We don't even know if everyone accumulates at the same rate. It could be town accumulate at different rates just to throw us off.

I really think you just don't understand exactly how simple of a rule we are asking the town to follow, and you are fighting something you think is a lot more encompassing than it is.

[Kinetic]

And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-

It's all right. We were never going to trap them with something that obvious. But if we can screw up their ability to make kills, we're way ahead of the game.

Probably, but I have two other plans up my sleeve that are less obvious. I'd like less speculation from you on what they are. But, they are actually kind of ingenious .

[charter]

I don't think I have time for a game moving this fast, I asked the mod to replace me. Very sorry.

[Zdenek]

So... set a giant time-bomb stall tactic for later in the game, which probably won't catch scum, instead of just simply having everyone claim rage if they use it... which would accomplish the same thing.

If it accomplishes the same thing, then why risk outing power roles now to do it?

And what is this time-bomb stall tactic?

We aren't claiming when we ACCUMULATE rage. We don't even know if everyone accumulates at the same rate. It could be town accumulate at different rates just to throw us off.

I was replying to this.

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage,

So Kinetic's not even reading.

I really think you just don't understand exactly how simple of a rule we are asking the town to follow, and you are fighting something you think is a lot more encompassing than it is.

I understand that it's a simple rule, but that in no way implies that it is a good idea.

Like I said,

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.

[Zdenek]

Even if we don't claim when we accumulate rage, as town uses it and claims their use of it, that will let scum know roughly how much rage town has at different points in the game, facilitating their lies.

[MattP]

I don't think I have time for a game moving this fast, I asked the mod to replace me. Very sorry.

Well.

[Yosarian2]

Even if we don't claim when we accumulate rage, as town uses it and claims their use of it, that will let scum know roughly how much rage town has at different points in the game, facilitating their lies.

Eh, I'm not really worried. Scum pretty much have to one-shot a townie with rage in order to beat our healing, and I doubt they're going to be able to do that without dumping all their rage, which is something we can test.

Again, though; we can claim rage or not, but NO ONE is going to claim how many hitpoints you have, ok?

[Kinetic]

I misread Yos's statement, did not see him say claiming of accumulation of rage. I'm against that.

How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

How have I disappeared? I posted within the last hour. I actually, and maybe it will come as a SURPRISE to you, don't enjoy playing with you whatsoever in games so try to simmer down your abrasiveness just a little bit as a favor to me

First off, you've posted null pertaining to the points being brought against you by myself and Yos to my satisfaction.

Secondly, I see nothing abrasive about my comment, only you trying to worm your way out of pressure.

Thirdly, I don't give a fuck if you "enjoy playing with me" or not. You will answer for your shit or you will die.