In post 97, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I don't like House's vote in 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
That's such a troll vote
In post 97, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I don't like House's vote in 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
In post 97, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Sir Cyanie
The last bit is obviously meant to be:
I don't like House's vote in 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
In post 100, Drezi wrote:In post 97, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I don't like House's vote in 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
That's such a troll vote
In post 101, House wrote:In post 97, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Sir Cyanie
The last bit is obviously meant to be:
I don't like House's vote in 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
Scumread me for it all you want. I have good reason for that vote and I'm sticking to it.
In post 102, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Are you saying my vote is trollish or House's vote is?
In post 92, House wrote:She seems to know there is an IC and is trying to push Cyanide based on her knowledge.
In post 90, Lalendra wrote:OR this is scum who knows that there is an IC and is trying to rationalize why he might know that so that when the IC is discovered, and it seems like he knew too much, he can just go "well I said right in this post here that I was just assuming based on the completed games!"
In post 104, Riabi wrote:Lal's vote in 90 is bad, IMO. Her entire post is just one WIFOM argument after another.
Victor's vote in 96 feels OMGUS to me. I would have liked to see victor actually respond to Cynide's accusation rather than just vote him back.
In post 96, VictorDeAngelo wrote:First, let's drop all the setup specualtion talk. Thank you.
I don't like House's vote in VOTE: 93. Ton's of people have been speculating and I don't see why Lal should be singled out.
In post 22, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Btw someone refresh my memory it's been a while since I played a game here, seeing as we are13 playerswe need 7 people to vote for 1 person to reach a lynch right?
In post 95, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Yeh I'm retarded, I was thinking 'there's 10 town and 3 of them are scum so 7:3'but that obviously doesn't make any sense. Either way that just makes my point even more relevant.
People on this site are really antsy to call something breadcrumbing/tells, I don't really believe in that. Seeing as the likelihood of there being an IC is so high, I suggest we devote some of our energy to discussing what the optimal play for the IC should be. I've already looked through the forums and wiki and there are no real articles and/or discussions about it. All in favor yay/nay?
In post 49, SIR CYANIDE wrote:
Worse, you may not get shot for it because you're more likely to be vanilla town if you mispredicted the set-up. You stated 'innocent child, tracker, 20/80
In post 83, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Ok, lets see what we know so far. Sadly I can't post in blue so we're going with a European traffic light scheme (is town read,greenis neutral/undecided,orange
<Readlist>
In post 107, pisskop wrote:And since your unvote your minimal content has sunk to correcting other players on their grammatical mistakes.
In post 108, pisskop wrote:Isn't it early to do this?I appreciate the townread, really, but this is a lot of effort for a first read. I look forward to your periodic reads.
Vote: Sir Cyanide
Why is that redundant? I don't get it.In post 96, VictorDeAngelo wrote:In other news, I don't like 83. A town scum list is redundant and this seems to just be an excuse to justify a scumread on me.
People on this site are really antsy to call something breadcrumbing/tells, I don't really believe in that. Seeing as the likelihood of there being an IC is so high, I suggest we devote some of our energy to discussing what the optimal play for the IC should be. I've already looked through the forums and wiki and there are no real articles and/or discussions about it. All in favor yay/nay?
Nay. Your job as a townie isn't to try to predict the actions of the PRs nor is it your job to hunt them out.
I'm really confused why the IC is the subject of such prolonged discussion. Does it change your game strategy much?
Isn't it early to do this? I appreciate the townread, really, but this is a lot of effort for a first read. I look forward to your periodic reads.
In post 112, SIR CYANIDE wrote:
There's no direct impact but I think we should devote some posts to discuss what optimal IC strategy is. The IC may not directly know what his/her optimal play is, so I feel we should discuss the protocol for the IC's claim. Why are people against this?
The strategy for IC is pants-shittingly obvious.
In post 114, SIR CYANIDE wrote:The strategy for IC is pants-shittingly obvious.
Not really. When you're IC, you're at L-1 and someone has the intent to hammer and asks you to claim, what do you do? There are multiple things you can do. Without the discussion I'm trying to incite, this is how it will likely go down:
Hammerer: claim
IC: I'm IC
Hammerer: pm to mods so we know you are IC
Wagonners: yeah go pm the mod
IC: alright
Mod: IC is IC
Hammerer: well I'll be damned
Wagonners: unvote: IC, vote: other person
~~
IT IS NOW NIGHT 1
IC has been found dead
~~
-------------------------
Now it doesn't have to be like this. It can also be like this:
Hammerer: claim
IC: I'm IC
Hammerer: pm to mods so we know you are IC
Wagonners: yeah go pm the mods
IC: no, I'll do it first thing next day
Hammerer: no, you have to pm the mod or you're getting a hammer
IC: I'll do it the first thing next day, we're not in LyLo, if I don't do it the next day you can still lynch me, blahblahblah
Hammerer&Wagonners: *more discussion ensues*
Wagonners: unvote: IC
~~
IT IS NOW NIGHT 1
IC, who was not actually IC but vanilla town, has been found dead
~~
Gratz, we got +value. The issue here is if theIC would have counterclaimed. Then the 'IC' in this example could have been scum, gone down and gotten a PR with him. It may seem silly to counterclaim, but if the fake IC pulls something like I just described in example 2, people may play incorrectly and counterclaim him just to get the lynch in. I've seen lots of stupid shit in my mafia career. This is one of those games where we actually have a fair amount of information (compared to other mafia games) and I think we should use that information to the best of our ability, this includes some probability work and speculation about mafia tendencies and what we should do if situation [x] or [y] arises.real
In post 114, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Hammerer: claim
IC: I'm IC
Hammerer: pm to mods so we know you are IC
Wagonners: yeah go pm the mods
IC: no, I'll do it first thing next day
Hammerer: no, you have to pm the mod or you're getting a hammer
IC: I'll do it the first thing next day, we're not in LyLo, if I don't do it the next day you can still lynch me, blahblahblah
Hammerer&Wagonners: *more discussion ensues*
Wagonners: unvote: IC
In post 117, Drezi wrote:In post 114, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Hammerer: claim
IC: I'm IC
Hammerer: pm to mods so we know you are IC
Wagonners: yeah go pm the mods
IC: no, I'll do it first thing next day
Hammerer: no, you have to pm the mod or you're getting a hammer
IC: I'll do it the first thing next day, we're not in LyLo, if I don't do it the next day you can still lynch me, blahblahblah
Hammerer&Wagonners: *more discussion ensues*
Wagonners: unvote: IC
Wagonners: vote Player2 (L-1)
Player2: actually I'm IC
...
Player3: no, actually I'm IC
Back to square one.
OR
NL
random townie (not ic claim) found dead.
Lynch IC claim, when he can't confirm.
Repeat.
And imagine this situation when we don't even have an IC. Scum knows if that's the case.
Where's the +value?
In post 117, Drezi wrote:In post 114, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Hammerer: claim
IC: I'm IC
Hammerer: pm to mods so we know you are IC
Wagonners: yeah go pm the mods
IC: no, I'll do it first thing next day
Hammerer: no, you have to pm the mod or you're getting a hammer
IC: I'll do it the first thing next day, we're not in LyLo, if I don't do it the next day you can still lynch me, blahblahblah
Hammerer&Wagonners: *more discussion ensues*
Wagonners: unvote: IC
Wagonners: vote Player2 (L-1)
Player2: actually I'm IC
...
Player3: no, actually I'm IC
Back to square one.
OR
NL
random townie (not ic claim) found dead.
Lynch IC claim, when he can't confirm.
Repeat.
And imagine this situation when we don't even have an IC. Scum knows if that's the case.
Where's the +value?
In post 112, SIR CYANIDE wrote:Well, now we do heavily suspect the set-up to have an IC, right? Does anyone actually disagree with this? If there is anyone who thinks it's unlikely for this game to have an IC, please speak up and give your reasoning.
In post 118, House wrote:You clearly don't know how IC works.
In post 119, SIR CYANIDE wrote:In example one, the IC makes an incorrect play by immediately counterclaiming.
In post 113, House wrote:In post 112, SIR CYANIDE wrote:
There's no direct impact but I think we should devote some posts to discuss what optimal IC strategy is. The IC may not directly know what his/her optimal play is, so I feel we should discuss the protocol for the IC's claim. Why are people against this?
This is ridiculous. It's not like the IC has any actual abilities outside of becoming confirmed town.
The strategy for IC is pants-shittingly obvious. Play a town game and don't claim unless run up, because an IC is instant NK bait & nothing more than a named townie once outed.
You harping on about something so simplistic makes me think you're just trying to look invested without actually being productive at all.
On the other, you could have simply posted it in the first place without fishing. I'd have felt better about your slot if you had.
The odds are good that there is one, however it's just as likely that if IC is as common as you say, that scum might have deliberately NOT picked IC as one of the PRs just to throw us off.