In post 49, RedCoyote wrote:To be clear, I am proposing we more or less completely leave out cross group discussion until D2 and let each group kind of decide their own fate. This is because this will automatically put the scum at a disadvantage, I think, by keeping them from working together to influence the other groups. Any thoughts on this?
Leaving out cross group discussion also keeps the other townies from influencing the other groups which I don't like. Looking at things on a larger scale allows us to draw connections and establish relational tells among everyone so that when we are out of our groups, we have even more interactions to work with in addition to just the in-group interactions.
In post 49, RedCoyote wrote:To be clear, I am proposing we more or less completely leave out cross group discussion until D2 and let each group kind of decide their own fate. This is because this will automatically put the scum at a disadvantage, I think, by keeping them from working together to influence the other groups. Any thoughts on this?
Leaving out cross group discussion also keeps the other townies from influencing the other groups which I don't like. Looking at things on a larger scale allows us to draw connections and establish relational tells among everyone so that when we are out of our groups, we have even more interactions to work with in addition to just the in-group interactions.
I agree. Not allowing input from the other groups makes it more likely that scum will influence, as in a group with a scum will have 1 mafia vs 2 town, where if we all work together, it's 7 town vs 2 mafia.
So really I say we treat like a normal day phase, garnering reads and give ourself a list to work from in the teams.
In post 15, Who wrote:It's the fishes. VOTE: Blackfish
Why would you assume that they are only for scum when the nature of the game (Town being divided into groups) implies that it could be for town as well?
Nothing about the nature of the game suggested that the three groups would have private communication. As far as I understood it, the group divisions are made solely for voting purposes and to help town with POE, with group members only being able to vote for themselves and town getting 2 confirmed townies when a mafia member is lynched. This I believe to counteract the mountainous effect of the game and provide a mechanic to help town in the absence of power roles. I assumed scum use the private threads instead of having a scum QT since that's what the OP implied. I am not following why I should think that the game implies town have private communication.
I'm not saying it should be assumed, I'm merely saying it is an easy mistake to make. Also, why would scum be stupid enough to ask publicly?
Scum are obviously not stupid enough to ask publicly why they haven't received their QT links and Tiershift asking for it was either a towntell (or a fake one). I wasn't sure enough which so I pushed him to see if he reacted in an alignment revealing way. His response was a little sarcastic and dismissive which bothered me so I checked to see if it was alignment indicative for him to react that way in his other games and found nothing. I have a slight town lean based on his trying to shut down the discussion but it is not strong.
As for your post, why did you jump in and answer for Tiershift before he had a chance to respond himself?
Because I cared far more about your response to my question than his response to yours.
As regards grouptalk, I think we should mostly stick to within our groups but not outright ban cross-group discussion.
Who said that?
Chamber. It's all a conspiracy.
Or is it?
In post 52, Who wrote:Because I cared far more about your response to my question than his response to yours.
They are not mutually exclusive. You could still have asked me a question after you saw Tiershift respond to mine. Or phrased it in a way that didn't already give him an answer.
On second thoughts, you probably couldn't. But I'd still like to know why you were uninterested in hearing what Tiershift had to say or where my questioning of him would lead us to. Your jump struck me as somewhat overeager.
I also want to know why you would like to mostly "stick within our groups." I think the optimal play is to have players interact with everyone and influence all lynches.
In post 37, goodmorning wrote:Up to my last post I thought Town. Now? This continued pushing is a little aggressive, and I'm not really sure whether that's playstyle or something more sinister. It's also a little weird that he's focused on LM's not commenting on it and didn't mention that I didn't.
Why did you find it weird?
Because double standards.
I focused on LM because he RVS voted as if there was nothing better to discuss while ignoring the discussion that
had
taken place. Your posts came across as prioritizing your own scumhunting of Tiershift by asking him why he wanted the groups to discuss among themselves as opposed to majority decisions.
In post 42, goodmorning wrote:
Why did you ask this question? Like, I want to know where your head was at. The reason I phrased that colloquially is because I am not attaching any value judgement to my question. I genuinely want to know.
I guess curiosity. Never seen this set-up and I wanted to know and I thought the mod or other players would know better. Must have skimmed over it in the rules.
OK. What was your thought process that brought up the idea of no lynches in the first place?
In post 49, RedCoyote wrote:To be clear, I am proposing we more or less completely leave out cross group discussion until D2 and let each group kind of decide their own fate. This is because this will automatically put the scum at a disadvantage, I think, by keeping them from working together to influence the other groups. Any thoughts on this?
It's an interesting thought, but as I already mentioned, I personally greatly value the opinions of others, and also to see someone's scumhunting of 8 people rather than just 2 can be pretty indicative.
If that didn't make any sense, it's because I'm half asleep and I will rephrase in the morning if I can figure what I meant.
Blackfish wrote:On second thoughts, you probably couldn't. But I'd still like to know why you were uninterested in hearing what Tiershift had to say or where my questioning of him would lead us to. Your jump struck me as somewhat overeager.
I had a similar response to him when I saw the thing about private topics, the only difference was that I was on my phone and quoting one section of the first post would have been a hassle.
Blackfish wrote:I also want to know why you would like to mostly "stick within our groups." I think the optimal play is to have players interact with everyone and influence all lynches.
Well personally I'm more confident on my read of people within group coconut than any other group, also I think it would be more fun this way. As regards "optimal play", I think that without the ability to vote for one another then normal (What everyone is used to analyzing) play will not occur, and we will not be able to effectively analyze what does go on.
Who said that?
Chamber. It's all a conspiracy.
Or is it?
BC 51 wrote:So really I say we treat like a normal day phase, garnering reads and give ourself a list to work from in the teams.
What worries me about this is that it will lead to more accidental votes, I think. I might be a little overcautious, but I'm actually really worried about people voting for players outside their groups and catching heat from the Mod for this.
In post 57, Who wrote:I had a similar response to him when I saw the thing about private topics, the only difference was that I was on my phone and quoting one section of the first post would have been a hassle.
Okay, I find it plausible but I wished you had let him answer.
In post 57, Who wrote:Well personally I'm more confident on my read of people within group coconut than any other group
Why?
In post 57, Who wrote:As regards "optimal play", I think that without the ability to vote for one another then normal (What everyone is used to analyzing) play will not occur, and we will not be able to effectively analyze what does go on.
We can hear the opinions of other players and allow them to influence the lynches and see where they lead. Constraining ourselves to just our groups feels like deliberately cutting off the amount of information we gain.
In post 57, Who wrote:Well personally I'm more confident on my read of people within group coconut than any other group
Why?
No reason, I just do at the moment.
In post 57, Who wrote:As regards "optimal play", I think that without the ability to vote for one another then normal (What everyone is used to analyzing) play will not occur, and we will not be able to effectively analyze what does go on.
We can hear the opinions of other players and allow them to influence the lynches and see where they lead. Constraining ourselves to just our groups feels like deliberately cutting off the amount of information we gain.
I'm not saying we should explicitly make sure not to talk about out-of-group stuff, I'm just saying we should focus on our own groups, and each group should go with what they think, not with what everyone else thinks.
Information we can't use means nothing.
Who said that?
Chamber. It's all a conspiracy.
Or is it?
Interacting with other groups helps us influence the lynch happening in those groups. I don't understand any need to curtail that interaction in any way. The voting will obviously be made by the group members but that doesn't mean the others shouldn't tell them who to vote for and attempt to influence those votes. I find it a pro-scum strategy to limit it.
In post 42, goodmorning wrote:Why did you ask this question? Like, I want to know where your head was at. The reason I phrased that colloquially is because I am not attaching any value judgement to my question. I genuinely want to know.
In post 49, RedCoyote wrote:To be clear, I am proposing we more or less completely leave out cross group discussion until D2 and let each group kind of decide their own fate. This is because this will automatically put the scum at a disadvantage, I think, by keeping them from working together to influence the other groups. Any thoughts on this?
Reasons why this is a bad idea:
1) It denies us associative tells. I signed up for this game because it by-default gives me structure groups to work with, which saves me a lot of time in my scum hunting process. Being able to cross-reference the setup's structure groups with those that I'll eventually end up building naturally gives me a lot more ability to be precise early in my scum hunting. I'm also assuming that there are other people who like to scum hunt by associative tells.
2) I don't know most of the other players in this game, which means that I don't trust the scum hunting abilities of the group as a whole. Given that I'm likely dead by day 2, I'd like to have reads across the game in play so that people have that reference point. Additionally, it means that I have more ability to influence getting scum lynched in the other two groups, which increases my chances of surviving to day 2 to wreck the game.
tl;dr, doing this limits my ability to carry, and I don't trust anyone else in this game to carry because I assume incompetent until proven otherwise.
BC 51 wrote:So really I say we treat like a normal day phase, garnering reads and give ourself a list to work from in the teams.
What worries me about this is that it will lead to more accidental votes, I think. I might be a little overcautious, but I'm actually really worried about people voting for players outside their groups and catching heat from the Mod for this.
This is a strange thing to be worried about.
I'm too tired/too writing a paper to discern town/scum/stupid motivation behind this. Backend will probably take care of that for me once I'm less busy.
1) It denies us associative tells. I signed up for this game because it by-default gives me structure groups to work with, which saves me a lot of time in my scum hunting process. Being able to cross-reference the setup's structure groups with those that I'll eventually end up building naturally gives me a lot more ability to be precise early in my scum hunting. I'm also assuming that there are other people who like to scum hunt by associative tells.
2) I don't know most of the other players in this game, which means that I don't trust the scum hunting abilities of the group as a whole. Given that I'm likely dead by day 2, I'd like to have reads across the game in play so that people have that reference point. Additionally, it means that I have more ability to influence getting scum lynched in the other two groups, which increases my chances of surviving to day 2 to wreck the game.
tl;dr, doing this limits my ability to carry, and I don't trust anyone else in this game to carry because I assume incompetent until proven otherwise.
You're right about associative tells, it would be dumb to ignore a scum tell and let another group figure it out. This is also very important for Day 2 reads, that we work together.
The "I'll be dead by day 2" thing always annoys me, not a scum tell or anything, it's just redundant and does nothing towards reads.
Bro, what do you think about blackfish? He is quite aggressive out of the gate.
In post 65, BROseidon wrote:2) I don't know most of the other players in this game, which means that I don't trust the scum hunting abilities of the group as a whole. Given that I'm likely dead by day 2, I'd like to have reads across the game in play so that people have that reference point. Additionally, it means that I have more ability to influence getting scum lynched in the other two groups, which increases my chances of surviving to day 2 to wreck the game.
And now I wish I could vote you.
New thought about the voting: If every group lynches Town, that would be a loss. If all groups have a Town vote on Town at the same time, Scum could quickhammer for a win.
In post 71, goodmorning wrote:
New thought about the voting: If every group lynches Town, that would be a loss. If all groups have a Town vote on Town at the same time, Scum could quickhammer for a win.
This isn't fully true, as one group has no scum, and if all town are lynched, it would be 3 town vs 2 mafia the next day, but the mafia would have made it pretty obvious who they are.
In post 65, BROseidon wrote:2) I don't know most of the other players in this game, which means that I don't trust the scum hunting abilities of the group as a whole. Given that I'm likely dead by day 2, I'd like to have reads across the game in play so that people have that reference point. Additionally, it means that I have more ability to influence getting scum lynched in the other two groups, which increases my chances of surviving to day 2 to wreck the game.
And now I wish I could vote you.
New thought about the voting: If every group lynches Town, that would be a loss. If all groups have a Town vote on Town at the same time, Scum could quickhammer for a win.
