Web of Trust 2 - Phase 1

[Zyrconium]

I was hoping the connotations of distrust would be enough to get my point across in leu of a verb that means I specifically don't trust you to an extent greater than average... you're sheeping would be with LLD and Mafu on the: "I'm staying away from this web for ambiguous reasons"... but the point I was making was that your post did naught else BUT spread rampant aimless distrust and in a game where finding people to trust(not indiscriminately I'll give you, but you're not doing this AT ALL) and making people trust you is the point, I don't see how you're playing to anyone's win condition.....

I really need to stop posting at 3am.... but I think this makes enough sense today for the English.

[Kcdaspot]

well we won't exactly know ANYTHING unless the first web forms now won't we? I don't want confusion in the ranks right now. I opt out so the a web proper can form. What would you have me do?

[Zyrconium]

You know what kcda.... I think you're on to something.

Untrust: mykonian

Let's just sit back and see what happens.

[Kcdaspot]

glad you see it my way... bed calls. nitenite

[Kcdaspot]

everyone is out for holidays?

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Yep, just got back.

[Tasky]

Please don't start to let activity drop. bump.

[mykonian]

if you would like that better, we could vote which players we would like to keep out of the web of trust. Makes the game a bit more mafia like.

[MrTrow]

Only that it wouldn`t change that much:
'voting people out of the web' is only possible in a 6 or 7 person web, so for it to actually work 2 players have to already be excluded from the web.

Or are you suggesting we just vote now and expect everyone to 'trust acordingly' afterwards?
effectively illiminating/replacing any actual discussion(and thus scumhunting)

[mykonian]

I think what you propose first is overdone in the first round. There is little to no discussion. So I proposed a new angle for discussion (voting people out in stead of getting people in). It doesn't actually change anything.

But if you have better idea's: be my guest.

[MrTrow]

I wasn`t proposing anything
I saw 2 possible things you could mean by 'voting people out'
and considered the first: unlikely due to practical issues
and the second: a reason to vote you out (or get discussions going)

[mykonian]

it was the second, so you are voting me?

[MrTrow]

Replacing actual discussion by this vote is reason enough to want you out of the web.
Getting discussion going is reason enough to place a vote.

So yes i am voting you out.
If enough discussion follows from this (and i believe that was your intention) my vote may be reduced to an RVS one, but for now it stands.

[Zyrconium]

Trow, if.... as you seem to suggest... you think that mykonian's ploy may create discussion, wouldn't it logically follow that no matter what the result ends up being myk's intentions were that of a townies(or of Mafia actually helping town),

Considering the above to be true, what difference is there in mykonian's scummyness if he is unsuccessful?

[Mafuyu]

Mafuyu's interested in LLD's lack of trust-probing.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Even with the untrust function, I don't want to become involved in a web just yet.

I want to see what other webs form in spite of me.

[Zyrconium]

LLD. given your actions over the last 3 days and the

resulting

information gained, are you happy to proceed with this course of action?

P.S. There's a third option that entirely negates your "but I don wanna randomly trust people for shits and giggles" argument.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Present the third option then.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Sorry, here

Whatsup?

[Kcdaspot]

We've reached an impsse then i think. by my count there are 4 people wanting out and I believe there are 8 players?

[Kcdaspot]

scratch that, WEB OF AWESOME FORM!

also can we trust random peeps and not have them trust us back? for lulz?

if so,

trust: Wingless

!! oh wait...

[SharkFinn]

Sorry. Forgot about this. Catchin up

[MrTrow]

Trow, if.... as you seem to suggest... you think that mykonian's ploy may create discussion, wouldn't it logically follow that no matter what the result ends up being myk's intentions were that of a townies(or of Mafia actually helping town),

Considering the above to be true, what difference is there in mykonian's scummyness if he is unsuccessful?

Strictly speaking: nothing, as soon as i believe that the discussion was indeed his goal my 'vote' will be reduced to an rvs one.
If another arguement arguement comes around (which is a lot more likely if there`s discussion) that will change my vote
Of course in the event that such arguement comes, then i should change my vote. However if no arguements show, the entire vote-idea failed and it doesn`t matter where i was in anything that wasn`t completed.

On a more practical note: Discussion requires quite little: a subject and at least 2 parties with different views on the given subject, i commented on the subject(the vote people out idea, without any info to go on) with a different view. (claimed the 'party 2 position')
As such (i know) it`s not possible to not having this turn into a discussion if he wants the discussion.

[mykonian]

I vote LLD now, so I think LLD is scum. Do you disagree?

[mykonian]

I vote LLD now, so I think LLD is scum. Do you disagree?