hmm, see my vote. id figure thats a good place for a wagon atm. Still, id like to see alot more discussion before any lynch is made...ryan wrote:Ok BM, who's our first day best lynch?
If you can come up with a convincing reason not to lynch lurkers besides "what do we learn now", I'll gladly listen, but my belief is that we will learn less in the LONG run (which is how I think we have to win this game) if we lynch an active poster versus someone who's contributions to this point are a random vote and saying lynch anyone lurking but me.Battle Mage wrote:hmm, see my vote. id figure thats a good place for a wagon atm. Still, id like to see alot more discussion before any lynch is made...ryan wrote:Ok BM, who's our first day best lynch?
Do you honestly think that we will find a more worthy lynch candidate on _day one_?Battle Mage wrote:Ryan, how much will we learn WITH a lynch?
answer: Jack-all.
We need discussion, and various bandwagons, and PATIENCE to lure out scum. im not opposed to a fairly random lynch today, but i think killing the first person we set eyes on, with NO arguments, is pointless.
I understand that you were using that to apply to Qman. However, everything in that post except the vote could apply to anyone who was voting Blahgo at the time. What you needed to do was specify why you were directing it at Qman in particular. Had you been reading my posts, it would've been quite clear what I was asking of you.Battle Mage wrote:ah i see you have at last read it. Now you just need to UNDERSTAND it.
To put it in simple terms for you, the WHOLE POST was directed at QMan. Id have thought that much would have been obvious from the vote, but i guess not. or maybe you were trying to bury the meaning of my post under a heap of confusion. i just dont know with you.
Why didn't you just say this when I first asked you, instead of causing a big huff over nothing?@QMan- the comment bothers me because it looks like you were trying to validate a vote with game theory, however this game theory was incorrect. it put you as a preferable vote to a lurker at this point.
Just because you believe it to be wrong does not invalidate the theory. It's your opinion, and others can and do have the right to a different opinion. Beyond that I have no further comment on this issue.Battle Mage wrote:
@QMan- the comment bothers me because it looks like you were trying to validate a vote with game theory, however this game theory was incorrect. it put you as a preferable vote to a lurker at this point.
So, what, according to you is the best idea for hunting SK on day 1? I suggested, in the beginning that we have no choice but to random lynch on day 1 unless one SK makes a big mistake, but the random lynch should occur only after everyone participates in the discussion, and we have everyone's views. Do you agree with that?Mastermind of Sin wrote:Actually, I disagree that lynching a lurker is a good strategy, even for this setup. I only suggested this for 2 reasons:
a) to find out who would support such a horrible idea and pick out the scum
b) to put pressure on the lurker to post and contribute, lest they be lynched.
Also, while Blahgo's response was not helpful AT ALL, I believe that it fits more as a newbish reponse, because scum are more likely to respond to the pressure and try to defend/explain themselves in that sort of situation.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:Actually, I disagree that lynching a lurker is a good strategy, even for this setup. I only suggested this for 2 reasons:
a) to find out who would support such a horrible idea and pick out the scum
b) to put pressure on the lurker to post and contribute, lest they be lynched.
Also, while Blahgo's response was not helpful AT ALL, I believe that it fits more as a newbish reponse, because scum are more likely to respond to the pressure and try to defend/explain themselves in that sort of situation.
I say we lynch someone who we think is acting like an SK, obviously. Random lynches are never more helpful than informed lynches.Sir Tornado wrote:So, what, according to you is the best idea for hunting SK on day 1? I suggested, in the beginning that we have no choice but to random lynch on day 1 unless one SK makes a big mistake, but the random lynch should occur only after everyone participates in the discussion, and we have everyone's views. Do you agree with that?Mastermind of Sin wrote:Actually, I disagree that lynching a lurker is a good strategy, even for this setup. I only suggested this for 2 reasons:
a) to find out who would support such a horrible idea and pick out the scum
b) to put pressure on the lurker to post and contribute, lest they be lynched.
Also, while Blahgo's response was not helpful AT ALL, I believe that it fits more as a newbish reponse, because scum are more likely to respond to the pressure and try to defend/explain themselves in that sort of situation.
Mastermind of Sin wrote:I understand that you were using that to apply to Qman. However, everything in that post except the vote could apply to anyone who was voting Blahgo at the time. What you needed to do was specify why you were directing it at Qman in particular. Had you been reading my posts, it would've been quite clear what I was asking of you.Battle Mage wrote:ah i see you have at last read it. Now you just need to UNDERSTAND it.
To put it in simple terms for you, the WHOLE POST was directed at QMan. Id have thought that much would have been obvious from the vote, but i guess not. or maybe you were trying to bury the meaning of my post under a heap of confusion. i just dont know with you.
Why didn't you just say this when I first asked you, instead of causing a big huff over nothing?@QMan- the comment bothers me because it looks like you were trying to validate a vote with game theory, however this game theory was incorrect. it put you as a preferable vote to a lurker at this point.
[/quote]Battle Mage wrote:im not going to argue semantics with you MoS. suffice to say, i know that you are not completely stupid, and i wont be helping you play the "i dont know whats going on" card.
also,Unvote, Vote: MoS
I dont believe you were setting a trap to catch scum.i think you were setting a trap to catch lazy townies.
When have I played such a card? I know exactly what is going on. Also, you saying that you don't believe I would set a trap is a pointless argument, because there is no way I can prove this beyond my own word, and you never believe anything I say anyways. To be fair, if I was trying to "trap" lazy townies, why did I not attempt to start a bandwagon on someone who had voted Blahgo? Your theory doesn't make a lot of sense right now, because you don't have actions to back it up. I have moved on past the Blahgo wagon, because the information needed from it has been produced. That is all.Battle Mage wrote:im not going to argue semantics with you MoS. suffice to say, i know that you are not completely stupid, and i wont be helping you play the "i dont know whats going on" card.
