WTF?Adel wrote:I think this idea is gets a warmer reception than my last big idea
EBWOP:
I think this idea will get a warmer reception than my last big idea
WTF?Adel wrote:I think this idea is gets a warmer reception than my last big idea
Sorry to burst your bubble, but seriously, I don't think that this is a good idea... letting the scum know where every single night choice is going is decidedly not pro town. Nice try though? Adel, voting for you is starting to look win-win...Adel wrote:I think this idea will get a warmer reception than my last big idea
I'd like to see Adel respond to that.Guardian wrote:Adel: Well, from all the games I've been in so far, and not one of them having any activity problems - in fact most of them people comment surprisedly about how ridiculously active the game is, while my play may have (many?) other problems I don't think it can been seen as a participation suppressor.
It got you to respond immediately didn't it? I don't have experience playing to back this up, but from reading games, scum squirm when targeted, whereas townies explain why their actions are founded and look for who the real scum might be. That last post reeks of the former and has nothing of the latter; you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
I am not gunning for you, specifically, I am gunning for all people I see as likely scum candidates, especially when they post more scummy things.
I am an active and confident player, you aren't going to intimidate me. I was pointing out that your style could intimidate other players. And it might.Guardian wrote:It got you to respond immediately didn't it? I don't have experience playing to back this up, but from reading games, scum squirm when targeted, whereas townies explain why their actions are founded and look for who the real scum might be. That last post reeks of the former and has nothing of the latter; you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
I didn't want to point YB out, as Nanook pointed me out, though...YogurtBandit wrote:There is always the possiblity of there being2 Cops/ 2 Docs. <snip> The chances that we have at least 1 Cop and 1 Doc are good.
Ok, it might. I am of the opinion that townies should always post as often and as much as they can no matter what though; that is exactly why lurking is scummy, it doesn't give the other players an opportunity to get a read on you. I tried to describe this earlier when responding to MeMe.Adel wrote:I am an active and confident player, you aren't going to intimidate me. I was pointing out that your style could intimidate other players. And it might.Guardian wrote:It got you to respond immediately didn't it? I don't have experience playing to back this up, but from reading games, scum squirm when targeted, whereas townies explain why their actions are founded and look for who the real scum might be. That last post reeks of the former and has nothing of the latter; you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
I put a lot of effort into this thread, and the more work I put into it the more words you type painting me as scum for my efforts. As the target of my wild theory it made sense for you to be defensive, but when I make a post regard a scheme that I think would be pro-town and ask for comment, you dismiss it and add my attempt to your already OMGUSy list of my faults. Go ahead and mis-characterize me some more, but evaluate the vigkill scheme on its own merits and please drop the sarcasm so everyone else can have a clearer understanding of your argument.
This tells us nothing, and that gives us much more mystery. But, its nothing we should worry about. Right now, we should worry about Lynching Scum. Hey, If we Lynch one today, and both cops get a Guilty, We could have a 3 day Town win.(Again considering the Mafia do not kill us both nights) Docs, If you are out there, protect who you think is more protown tonight. Just protect one of us.Wiki wrote:All variant sanities are uncommon in Mini Games or other situations with just one Cop in the game.
When a Game Moderator uses these roles, the player receiving the role is usually only told his/her role is Cop. Sometimes sanity is revealed upon death, but frequently not, leading to ambiguity if a Cop is killed early in the game.
I tried to explain why players who are town may choose to lurk- they don't do it because it is bad for town. I even tried to make it clear why it is bad for townie to lurk: it gives cover for lurkers. Making a mountain out of a mole hill + mis-characterizing a comment to warp it into a scum tell. Exactly the reasons why my initial, unexplained, vote was placed on you... as I explained in post #68. Now you are doing it some more.you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
Hah! Im not investigating you! Im investigating someone else, some one I think is Scummy.I do think you are, but I also think you are Cop, So I'll save that one for later.Guardian wrote:YB's claim brings this to light. For example, say we decide that any potential doc will target me tonight, and I will investigate YB, and he will investigate me. That means that if YB is town he is likely dead tonight, because the scum will know that he is not protected. I would get an almost useless investigation, and a cop would be dead. If YB is mafia, he and his buddies can try and influence the vote and get him doc protected instead so that they can kill me.
First of all each player is an individual, and makes the own choices. As a group we can tell each power role what to do all we want, and they'll still make their own decision. And your logic for how the mafia would react to the group putting their minds together to assist the (possible) vig in making a good decision strikes me as a scummy response: using crap logic to dismiss a pro:town plan. The mafia, in trying to predict the actions of the autonomous individuals playing our power roles will always run into a recursive logic error (WIFOM) so they will never be able to confidently predict who a P.R. will target. Once again, though the logical fallacy of over-simplification, you are overstating your case. That you didn't mention the possibility of there being a mafia roleblocker, the biggest hole in my plan, suggests that:Guardian wrote:Your vigging plan has similar flaws. If we tell the vig who to vig, the mafia can respond appropriately. Maybe by defending the vig candidate if he is a mafia member, maybe because they were planning to kill the same person that the vig is going to kill, maybe by no killing to try and make us think there is no vig, or whatever. They can also try and influence the vig kill just like they would try to influence any vote. In my opinion, trying to definitively give a target for power roles is a bad idea and is scummy. Even though any potential vigilante is not at this point accountable for acting as we would decide him to, if we give him a target to vig kill, the mafia can try and influence our decision and they can take that information into the night.
If all your grandoise plan is trying to do is have people give a runner up candidate as to who they think is scummy, and have that information "officially" there... well I think people should always play that way, and that calling it a vig kill target is bad for the above reasons.
A mafia roleblocker would definitely hamper us directing the actions of the potential doc and cops, but how would a mafia roleblocker block a potential vig whose theoretical identity is unknown? Maybe it is you who knows something we don't?Adel wrote:That you didn't mention the possibility of there being a mafia roleblocker, the biggest hole in my plan, suggests that:
1. you are mafia and you know that there is a roleblocker
or
2. you are mafia and since there isn't a roleblocker you didn't think of the possibility.
You are wise enough in the ways of mafia to know of that possibility. I was actually worried that another player would point out that hole in my plan before you had a chance to respond.
<snip>
I am so happy with my vote now.
Think this through a little more.Guardian wrote:A mafia roleblocker would definitely hamper us directing the actions of the potential doc and cops, but how would a mafia roleblocker block a potential vig whose theoretical identity is unknown?
Adel in 152 wrote:Wow. You really are gunning for me, aren't you. No wonder townies so often lurk giving cover to the lurking scum: play as aggressive as your's suppresses participation. Less information = less basis for lynch votes = greater % of a mis-lynch. WTG.
Guardian in #154 wrote: It got you to respond immediately didn't it? I don't have experience playing to back this up, but from reading games, scum squirm when targeted, whereas townies explain why their actions are founded and look for who the real scum might be. That last post reeks of the former and has nothing of the latter; you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
I am not gunning for you, specifically, I am gunning for all people I see as likely scum candidates, especially when they post more scummy things.
Adel in post #160 wrote:something I missedI tried to explain why players who are town may choose to lurk- they don't do it because it is bad for town. I even tried to make it clear why it is bad for townie to lurk: it gives cover for lurkers. Making a mountain out of a mole hill + mis-characterizing a comment to warp it into a scum tell. Exactly the reasons why my initial, unexplained, vote was placed on you... as I explained in post #68.you even present an explanation of why it is good to lurk... which it isn't...
Am I?Guardian in post #164 wrote:Also, the lurker thing was half a sentence of my post, and in this case I think you are the one over-exaggerating a minor point I made.
Oh, it is dirty to post something like that and then continue to state and restate a case against me.Guardian wrote:That being said, I have observed two obvious town players at each other's throats for no good reason in another game I am currently in, so I am going to take a step back and relook at the case against you, as the center of it are your two theories...
Why the sudden reason to unvote me?Erotomachia wrote:I haven't finished reading the last few posts, but I just saw YogurtBandit's claim.
unvote: YogurtBandit