Romanus wrote:This seems to be the deal.
Someone said that if we 'no lynch' then we are definitely gonna lose some pro-town players tonight and be in a worse situation tomorrow. If we lynch a power player, or a vanilla townie, we are still gonna lose one if not more townies, plus the bad lynch. It would be ridiculous due to the game rules to randomly lose a vigilante, cop, doctor, or even a townie, simply because time ran out and someone thought it would be a bad idea not to lynch. With a 'no lynch' vote in the majority, we lose no one if time runs out. This allows us to have maximum control of the situation. Randomness is good for scum, so whoever is in favor of it, or has shown themselves in favor of it, is scummy.
He is still seriously defending the no-lynch idea. This is scummy. Even a random lynch by the town has a chance of hitting scum. A no-lynch has no chance. Leaving the mod to do a random lynch is still better than no lynch. Even if we do lynch a townie the vote patterns will help us.sprontalic wrote:You know that yet you still presist in saying that we should make a lynch. Small chance means highly unlikely...I ask why take that chance? That's just as bad as leaving the mod to do a random lynch (ok not quite as bad...but heck you're relying on instinct then, which just as bad as random). The way you post it makes me think that you're very happy with sacraficing a townie for a small chance at a scum lynch. Sounds fine...except for the fact that you're leaving it mostly to chance...which doesn't help anyone in this game. And the fact that you're willing to place one of us on the line for it I find highly suspicious.Rathyr wrote:We have to vote someone for the small chance that they may be scum.
It's hard, but we have to do it.
Who is going to control these 2-3 no-lynch votes? What if a person voting no-lynch sees something scummy and wants to vote? I can't see this plan working. It would only create confusion.sprontalic wrote: Note: I never suggested to play no lynch as the majority vote...only enough so that 2-3 votes won't be enough to lynch someone outright. Such accidental majorities would basically mean we're just going for a random lynch which as I said helps no one. This set up also means that we can see who makes late vote changes simply so that someone (most likely townie) will be lynched. THAT is what will give us vital information.
He's defending Romanus, remember this for later folks.sprontalic wrote:Spectrumvoid (regarding post 26): How was Romanus being stupid. He's trying to work out the best way to got through day 1 when we have absolutely no information. Unlike you he's not making baseless accusations.
How can a quick lynch occur? It doesn't matter how many votes someone gets, the day is over at a certain time no matter what we do. We need to keep somebody way out in front so that scum can't create a tie and force a random lynch.sprontalic wrote:
BA (post 43): I disagree. I think we should only have enough no lynches to prevent any random votes from being processed. I think 4-6 votes would mean someone is acting rather scummy (or something wanting to score a quick lynch.) This maximises our chances of lynching scum while minimising townie loss. (If a quick lynch occurs...we'll have a clear target for D2)
A lynch by the town will not be random. We have brains. Even if we hit the wrong target the discussion will help us. If we don't lynch then we lose an opportunity to lynch scum. The risk is worth it.sprontalic wrote:
Rathyr (post 45): I seems to me like you're continually advocating risk. Calculated risk is fine...but uncalculated risk is what will bring us down. The impression I get is that you're willing to take any risk even if it's the latter. I'm getting the feeling that you're being too complacent with random lynches which I believe is not good for the town.
Normally, I wouldn't be so quick to vote but with the unknown deadline I wanted the scummiest person to have the majority. It wasn't obvious to me that he was unknowing about the issue.Joker wrote:Sigh. No lynch is bad. Read the wiki.
unvote
vote wolfsbane
for piling on Romanus who is obviously just unknowing about this issue, not malicious.
What's up with not voting somebody because they have three votes? If you see something scummy vote it. Leaving the vote counts low makes it easier for scum to manipulate the vote. The best way to get things confirmed is to put some pressure on, and you don't know how much time we have before that lynch occurs.spectrumvoid wrote:Woa I went to sleep last night and woke up with 2 new pages to go through. Anyway, now that I see where Romanus is coming from,
unvote Romanus
And thanks for the wiki link joker. Wiki link says no lynch is more favourable in end-game, and I agree, also due to the odds stated in the many posts before me. (How do you quote?) Mikanoff, you voted no lynch only after everything was clarified. I won't cast a vote now because he has 3 votes already, and I want more things confirmed before a lynch occurs.FOS: Mikanoff
Note: I forgot who said this, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting to be lynched. I think no one (cop/doc/mafia/scum/SK etc) would want to be lynched.
sprontalic wrote:No I'm not...I'm defending people's decision to explore the prospect of a no lynch at the early stages of the game. No lynch is obviously stupid now (why do you think I DIDN'T vote no lynch.) But at THAT time it had to be said.wolfsbane wrote: He is still seriously defending the no-lynch idea. This is scummy. Even a random lynch by the town has a chance of hitting scum. A no-lynch has no chance. Leaving the mod to do a random lynch is still better than no lynch. Even if we do lynch a townie the vote patterns will help us.
And I never said that no one should do any voting and all vote no lynch. Note I said 2 votes max for no lynch to ensure no random votes would cause a lynch. What kinda vote patterns are you gonna find in random votes? huh?
I suspect that the scum will want close vote counts so that they could "accidentally" force a tie to save a scum partner or give the scum partner a 50% chance.sprontalic wrote: The former...is true. However the latter is untrue because using your logic of not knowing when day ends...how can they know when to force the tie eh? Why the need to keep someone way out in front? In fact it's probably better if we don't that way those who voted for the person who wasn't even of concern would be suspicious (as they are trying to force a random lynch over the duration of the day.)
How are we going to put someone 1 vote away from lynch? Even if someone has 12 votes they still aren't lynched until the deadline. Check out the rules.sprontalic wrote: I agree risk is worth it...but not uncalculated risk ie randomly voting someone who looks vaguely suspicious till their 1 vote away from a lynch. If we have things to go by then sure I'm all for lynching them...but when theres nothing why take the risk. From what I understand Rathyr was advocating for a lynch even if theres no suspects to be found...I find that disconcerting.
What happened between this post and your latest? You have changed your stance completely it seems.Brutal Assassin wrote:I think it is quite obvious that we aren't going to be able to work our an orderly system for pressuring people and that, instead, we're stuck putting people at direct risk of elimination in order to get them to talk. Kind of like interrogating someone and instead of asking them nicely, you put a gun to their head and warn that you've got a silent countdown going in your head and if they dont claim, you'll shoot.
The high pressure situation will lead to some stupid claims down the line, I'll call that now. Mikanoff: please fully claim or I'll throw my vote your way as well. Suggesting you are simply "Pro-town" and nothing more, is unproductive and a waste of time.
\Brutal Assassin wrote:2 votes on no lynch means the people with random votes are safe if everyone falls off of someone.
I believe you yourself said earlier (Might have been Patrick, actually) "We don't want to random lynch, we want to lynch scum".
If someone isn't scum, and we determine this, and don't know who to target, KNOWING we might not have any time, it is better to not lynch than to random lynch on day one.
AGAIN, this is a fallback plan for when have no scummy target, NOT the first choice of action.
Rathyr didn't write that, I did. It was sarcasm intended to show how BA's program is great for scum. I thought the vote at the bottom would show that I didn't believe it. You seem to be defending BA's pro-scum idea.sprontalic wrote:Rathyr wrote:
Ok, I think I see how this is going to work. Let's say some er..."innocent townie" is bandwagoned. He says "I'm not scum". Then suddenly a player or two jumps off the bandwagon and votes no lynch. Or maybe a few other "trustworthy townies" vote no lynch. The "innocent townie" is cleared and safe. Yea! the system worked. Nothing suspicious at all here...carry on...
If we're stupid enough to believe something by face value...maybe we don't deserve the lynch anyway.
I don't see much problem with your theory in the beginning of the game. I think BA's version where players can vote no-lynch to get a player off the chopping block is an easy way for scum to block a lynch while not attracting too much attention.sprontalic wrote:I know you did...but when I was making the reply I just copied thewolfsbane wrote: Rathyr didn't write that, I did. It was sarcasm intended to show how BA's program is great for scum. I thought the vote at the bottom would show that I didn't believe it. You seem to be defending BA's pro-scum idea.Rathyr wrote: part because I it was easier that way...but I forgot to change the name (I probably did it on a few occasions in that post as well.)
I'm defending "BA's pro-scum idea" because it was my idea...get your facts straight before you start accusing anyone.
And I'm interested why your constant claim of it being antitown...I spent a large post explaining why I believed why my idea is protown...yet you have only made short unsubstantiated suggestions that the idea is antitown. Maybe my theory has holes in it...but at least my claim is somewhat substantiated unlike yours.
unvote
vote: Wolfsbane
I don't understand why I get the vote. Sprontalic got the quotes wrong. Misuse of quote tags is a scum tell? Is there anything I can defend myself against?Rathyr wrote:Get your quotes straight before accusing someone.sprontalic wrote:I'm defending "BA's pro-scum idea" because it was my idea...get your facts straight before you start accusing anyone.
Look folks! A new bandwagon!unvote
vote: Wolfsbane
Hmm...I now have two votes on me. One is "instinct" and the other is "no concrete reasons except for his jumping around" I wonder if this means we are on the right track with the EoM wagon. Maybe a few more votes would convince him to post something.Romanus wrote:....
I have to say that I am a little worried about the wagon that formed on Eye so quickly. I know that I was the one who kinda called him out, but damn, I didn't even FOS or anything. Right now I am tempted to just sit on a no vote, but votes are the power of the people. I can't say I have any concrete reasons right now, except for his jumping around, but there may be more, and I will post on it soon. I am going to
VOTE: Wolfsbane
So how about a vote on Joker? He may be scum, he may not be - but, we'll never know unless we put some votes on. If he is scum then we should see some interesting things happen. I think we need a strong bandwagon early so that the scum will stick out if they try to make a move.Patrick wrote: Along with lordy, Joker didn't post alot yesterday so I don't think poking him is really unreasonable, and also mike needs to post some real contant too.
What I mean is that on day 1 we didn't even come up with a candidate until right before the deadline. I figured we would get another day at least and would be able to figure out what was up with TEoM. But, obviously that didn't work out too well, I don't want that to happen again.Rathyr wrote: @Wolfbane: What? A strong bandwagon? Are you joking? This is a timed game you know.
And so: I'm going toFoS:Lordybut give him a chance to speak.
AndVote: Wolfsbanefor his scummy post.
Yes, I have jumped on several bandwagons. If we don't get a clear majority on someone then scum control the vote. They just vote their scum partner then if anybody else puts a vote on they can move off and create a tie. If we are afraid to put more than 3 votes on somebody then we are screwed.mikanoff wrote:Patrick sorry, I think you are culpable, but when I said "I have read the thread and I have noticed he has jumped on every bandwagon.", I was refering to Wolfsbane, not you... lolmikanoff wrote:Vote: Patrick
FOS: Rathyr
FOS: Wolfsbane
FOS: lordy
I always think Patrick is scum and I go on thinking. I am alomst sure.
Rathyr always defend him
I have read the thread and I have noticed he has jumped on every bandwagon.
I think lordy maybe be scum because Bacde voted his and now he's dead...
Even so, you are my principal candidate to lynch today
Joker wrote: Vote to replace: Brutal Assassin
Everyone should post every day.
vote Romanus
for voting no lynch.
post 51wolfsbane wrote:Romanus wrote:This seems to be the deal.
Someone said that if we 'no lynch' then we are definitely gonna lose some pro-town players tonight and be in a worse situation tomorrow. If we lynch a power player, or a vanilla townie, we are still gonna lose one if not more townies, plus the bad lynch. It would be ridiculous due to the game rules to randomly lose a vigilante, cop, doctor, or even a townie, simply because time ran out and someone thought it would be a bad idea not to lynch. With a 'no lynch' vote in the majority, we lose no one if time runs out. This allows us to have maximum control of the situation. Randomness is good for scum, so whoever is in favor of it, or has shown themselves in favor of it, is scummy.
This is the worst idea ever. With a lynch we have a 3/12 maybe 4/12 chance of hitting scum. If we don't lynch then we have a 0% chance of hitting scum and we almost definitely lose at least one townie at night. With no-lynch votes floating around we run the risk of a no-lynch being in the majority and the scum get a free nightkill and we get less information. One player should always be in the majority in my opinion. The reactions to the bandwagon will give us much more info than no-lynch.
Vote: Romanus
post 52Arafax wrote: Vote Count
...
No Lynch: 1 (Romanus)
Mikanoff : 1 (Patrick)
spectrumvoid: 1 (lordy)
Sprontalic: 1 (Bacde)
lordy: 1 (TheEyeofMordor)
Bacde: 1 (sprontalic)
Romanus: 4 (Rathyr, spectrumvoid,Joker, wolfsbane)
Patrick: 1 (mikanoff)
Not voting: Brutal Assassin
post 54Romanus wrote: This is what I believe:
No lynch is better than lynching a townie
Lynching a scum is better than no lynch
No lynch is better than Random lynch.
A bad lynch today (lynching a townie) is better than a bad lynch later.
Votes are the way to get conversation rolling, and is obvious that my statements at the beginning, that were made in order to get the ball rolling and try and come up with a town strategy did more than I ever hoped.
I also believe that flexibility is necessary. After reconsidering my position on no lynch, which was not very firmly established to begin with, just an option that I saw good points to, I think running some one up will be fruitful. It seems that the majority of the town is against the no lynch as well. I will not be the person to deny the town what it wants especially when my original opinion was not well founded by my own admission, if you will consult my first post. I am fishing, trying to see what experienced players think. Second, the reason I defended my position was because of the mistaken impression that we would get a random lynch if we vote to no lynch. I was the one who championed the correct interpretation of the rules, not tried to obfiscate them like some others even after the MOD had clarified, very clearly what the rule was.
Having stated all that, I will now practice what I preach and
unvote; VOTE: spectrumvoid
Here is one of the reasons I'm voting Joker. He attacked me for voting Romanus for the exact same reason that he voted Romanus. How was it more obvious to me than it was to Joker? Then he accuses me before I even saw Romanus' defense or had a chance to unvote.Joker wrote: Sigh. No lynch is bad. Read the wiki.
unvote
vote wolfsbane
for piling on Romanus who is obviously just unknowing about this issue, not malicious.
I can empathize with your time zone issue. If you are 6 hours ahead of me then the most stuff happens during your nighttime. I have it a little better because I get the morning to analyze and things heat up around 6PM for me.lordy wrote:You see? One hour, it's 11.30 pm here, Im rushing homework, and theres already >15 posts already.
The way this game is, is that many posts do occur in your day, which is when I'm sleeping, and that when I finally get to check back around 20 hours later all I see is a flood of accusations, which explain why I have the least number of posts in the game. I would like to stay on, but if you think my timezone provides too much of a hinderance then I'll be glad to be replaced.
The reason why I vote this way, is very simply. I voted sprontalic yesterday because he was vouching for no lynch over enthusiatly(sp) while others were starting to jump off it. Today, my vote stays due to no good concrete reads, plus I do not see the point of a extra vote just so that I can be considered townie. I am not one who throws my vote around, simply because it's inpratical for me to do so. As such, I will only vote when I spot something, because I'm incapable of removing a vote in time to prevent the accidental lynch of a townie.
Well, I hope thats what you want wolf. I'll check back in a hours time.
I really don't get why you are jumping on me. I brought up the idea of checking out other people first I think. Then we both decided to do it at the exact same time (post 364-365). I mentioned that I suspected joker and lordy, so when I hit submit and saw that lordy wouldn't be available and that you had voted Joker I switched to Joker. What is strange about this?Rathyr wrote:Patrick: Wolfsbane would vote joker so that you would think he is town.
Patrick and BA: I agree with both of you, but since Mikanoff has four votes to Joker's three, I will keep my vote on Joker.
At this point yesterday mikanoff was at 4 votes and Joker was at three. Mikanoff and lordy were not voting. In Rathyr's post he says he is fine with a Joker or Romanus lynch. Then he unvotes Joker and votes Romanus which made a Joker lynch less likely.Rathyr wrote:Patrick wrote: There is perhaps one person I would rather is lynched over mike and that is Romanus. He comes off as very scummy, many of my reasons are already posted, but I don't believe him springing on the Joker wagon was anything other than oppotunistic. His answer to this is the one I would expect scum to give.
Ok. I'm fine with that. As long as Romanus or Joker (Both of which I believe are scum) is lynched, I will be happy. (Unless they turn out to have been townies.)
As such, Unvote: Joker and Vote: Romanus. ...
Arafax wrote:Vote Count
mikanoff : 4 ( sprontalic, Patrick, Spectrumvoid, Brutal Assassin)
Joker: 2 (wolfsbane, Romanus)
Rathyr: 2 (Joker, Mikanoff)
Romanus : 1 (Rathyr)
Not voting: lordy
Day 2 Ends - mikanoff is lynched
He was a townie
If you thought I was semi-cleared then how come you included me in this little theory?Brutal Assassin wrote: What I see as HIGHLY possible, after looking through this thread, is Joker and Wolfsbane as scum, staging a little argument (Just a small one, accusing each other, then forgetting about it entirely), and pushing for whatever lynch they see the most likely to be able to manage.
This is post 470 at the start of day 3. Romanus is your top suspect. That doesn't fit too well with your claim of blocking him on night 1. Why did you still suspect him but not me? I'll give you that the last part about me does tend to support your claim. But, later you came up with the Joker - wolfsbane theory. You didn't trust your results then, why now?Brutal Assassin wrote:My List of Suspects
Romanus - His eagerness to argue with me WAS distracting during part of Day 1 and most of day 2. His quickness to switch sides on the No Lynch debate and his unrelenting attack against it also generates a FoS from me. Scum wouldn't stick with the No lynch debate, they would switch over, just like he did, and use it as an edge to get a lynch. Scumdar rating - 7
Joker - I know he thinks otherwise, but his arguments have been few and poor. His remarks are usually bitter, and he hasn't contributed much the way of scum finding. Not nessecarily lurking, but the contributions he does make I don't find terribly useful. Scumdar rating - 5
Rathyr - Perhaps seeing security in the towns decision to lynch Mikanoff, he decided to work on setting up a lynch for the next day/stir some suspicion up on someone who he knew as innocent. That is how the whole Joker vote swing looks to me. If he is mafia, I don't see him working with Joker, for obvious reasons. But I could see him setting up that lynch for sure. That being said, it is either 1 or the other in my books. Scumdar rating - 5
sprontalic - Hasn't contributed much either, IMHO, and I dont think he has posted in quite a few pages. That said, I don't think he's shown much likelyhood of being scum. Scumdar rating - 3, but I'd like more participation.
I previously suspected Wolfsbane as well, but have removed him from my list after re-reading, I think he just enjoys getting some harsh comments in when he gets the chance.
Where is this staged argument theory? Can you give me some post numbers to look at? I'm not trying to suggest that it doesn't exist, I just want to make sure I know what you are talking about.Brutal Assassin wrote:I blocked Romanus N1 because of his sudden switch of opinion on the no lynch issue, and his zealousness in attacking those who supported the no lynch.
I blocked Wolfsbane N2 for the "staged argument" theory, along with some of the more choppy remarks he has made throughout the game which I had noted in the back of my mind.
I have a slight problem with your reasoning on this one. If no-lynch is the majority at the deadline then we automatically lose. If nobody gets a vote and the mod lynches randomly then we have a 1/3 chance of surviving another day.lordy wrote:Well, we're now at Lynch or lose, and thus we must be extremely causious with our vote. In fear of the deadline, im gonna
vote: no lynchuntil we have a prime suspect, as if the dealine hit anytimes soon and nobody gets a vote, it's gonna be random killing by the mod, and chances are that we'll lose a fellow townie instead of scum.
Im going to reread tonight once I get home.
This still doesn't explain why you unvoted spron. You took him out of the running and left yourself in a three-way tie. Only now did you switch to Rathyr.spectrumvoid wrote:I unvoted spron because I wanted to lynch either spron or rathyr. Since there's already 1 vote for Rathyr,vote: Rathyr. Either one is fine for me, as long as we lynch 1.
Why did you wait for someone else to vote Rathyr before protecting yourself?spectrumvoid wrote: It's also because I want to protect myself, obviously, so I'd rather vote for the 1 (out of the 2) who has more votes, in case someone else votes for me.
I don't think you should just up and be lynched. I said the change in attitude from no strong opinions to absolute certainty is strange - not that you should shut up.spectrumvoid wrote: I voted for Mikanoff, and I think I was pretty vocal about why I voted for him. I also had a big opinion about Romanus at first due to the no lynch issue. I backed off only on the Joker lynch. So it's incorrect to say I've had no opinion all game. Since we're at lynch-or-lose, it's important for me to have an opinion. Would you rather I just shut up and be lynched?
At post 567 there was a three-way tie between sprontalic, Romanus, and Rathyr. You claimed previously that sprontalic and Rathyr are our scum pair. However, you unvoted sprontalic leaving Romanus and Rathyr at a two way tie. Why not immediately vote Rathyr to break the tie? You simply unvote. You didn't actually vote Rathyr until post 579. You did unvote sprontalic but it wasn't until you needed to save yourself that you voted Rathyr. It seemed like you were reluctant to vote Rathyr even though it would have been the logical thing to do in post 567.spectrumvoid wrote:Well, I'll defend myself first as usual.
@wolfsbane: If I left my vote on Spron, we'll still be in a tie, and I have a random chance of getting lynched. To protect myself, I had to increase the vote to 2 to get rid on the randomness. Yes, that's selfish, but since I'm town, town loses if I die anyway. That's basically why I unvoted spron and voted rathyr.
