It's actually slightly less than 50% chance of an SK now (27 + 16 + .8). I foresee fun outguessing the RNG coming later in the game.
VOTE: vote: kyle99. Please don't lurk and flake this game.
I see big help to mafia and minimal help to town. So, disagree.Ythan 36 wrote:Before anyone answers, does anyone disagree with asking everyone what their policy is on shooting N0 as a vig?
This seems blatantly anti-town.Netlava 37 wrote:No, I don't disagree.
Not quite true. SK might be trying to hide themselves, and there are corner cases where mafia might not want to kill (4 player LYLO?).Netlava 39 wrote:There's really no reason for the SK and mafia not to shoot every night.
This seems like a serious vote, so can you explain it clearly. What doesn't match up about what Alduskkel said? What's suspect about his good point?Ythan 40 wrote:Doesn't match up.I eenie meenie miney moed.Ythan wrote:Al, provide a reason for your vote on me.
Good point.What if someone says they would shoot N0? That lowers the probability that they're a Vig and makes the Mafia's job of finding power roles easier.Ythan wrote:Before anyone answers, does anyone disagree with asking everyone what their policy is on shooting N0 as a vig?
vote Alduskkel
OK.yabbaguy wrote:The big beef I have is that the random votes themselves, save for Newbie games where there's always an L-2 freakout bound to happen, is that nothing transparent ever comes out of those votes alone. Usually, yes, it's someone doing something else controversial apart from that.
Yeah, I picked a random argument that's rather trivial and saw how people reacted to it, and that being that you thinking RVS was going to help was nowhere near the mark. What do I learn:
-you're quite reasoned and level-headed
-Alduskkel has a rather impatient temper in this game, which is fascinating.
-Ythan is content to actively ignore the debate altogether. Also fascinating.
-Zajnet is reasoned when defending that same opinion I find very, very wrong. Not afraid to weigh in.
We'll see where it goes from there. That's why I inhibited the reasons, so I could get more reactions.
How so specifically?Zajnet wrote:[Fonz]'s case on Beefster seems very contrived.
Why does that bother you?Netlava wrote:The fact that he bothered to differentiate between the 2 is what bothers me.Zajnet wrote:Not knowing what active lurking means isn't a scum tell, but I think some of the other things Fonz has been saying could be.
Netlava wrote:@drmyshottyizsik: Just curious, did you "meta" me btw?
Which games did you read? What conclusions did you draw?drmyshottyizsik wrote:yep
Can you give an example of what he might be hiding?Beefster wrote:^Misinterpretation. It happens. I can't read minds either.The Fonz wrote:1) You kinda contradicted yourself there, saying it was Ythan who was too lazy to go back and quote himself. That implies that the answers were there, and therefore Ythan was in the right.
The thought process I went through was this:
-He claims he answered the questions, which I'm not seeing.
-If he thought he answered the questions, why didn't he go back and quote what he thought to be the answer?
-He covers it up by labeling it as spoonfeeding to quote the answer he claims to have.
-I see this as hiding something because he refused to answer a question clearly.
How can getting activity going be anti-town?Beefster wrote:[Ythan attacked] a totally non-threatening random vote. It got the activity going, but that's not necessarily pro-town.
How is that anti-town? Seems like SOP to me...Prox wrote:My playstyle isn't anti-town in any obvious functions. Except:I do not role claim at L-1 unless sure of a hammer.
Such as?Prox wrote:However, Ythan and his immediate suspicion of Al's random vote still confuses me. It could suggest several things.
And again. What questions remain?Prox wrote:The point is that I see you as town, but some questions still remain. These need not be asked atm.
Beefster wrote:Reasons, true intentions. Specifically, the real reason he asked the Vig question.ekiM wrote:Can you give an example of what he might be hiding?Beefster wrote:^Misinterpretation. It happens. I can't read minds either.The Fonz wrote:1) You kinda contradicted yourself there, saying it was Ythan who was too lazy to go back and quote himself. That implies that the answers were there, and therefore Ythan was in the right.
The thought process I went through was this:
-He claims he answered the questions, which I'm not seeing.
-If he thought he answered the questions, why didn't he go back and quote what he thought to be the answer?
-He covers it up by labeling it as spoonfeeding to quote the answer he claims to have.
-I see this as hiding something because he refused to answer a question clearly.
OK, point taken that being a village idiot wouldn't be helpful. I don't understand how "provoking activity by flinging accusations" is a bad thing, even if they're fairly weak sauce. That's exactly what people should be doing at the start of the game. I also don't understand what scum motive you're imputing here.Beefster wrote:I never said anti-town. Scum may want to provoke activity more along the lines of flinging accusations or causing accusations to be flung. Not all icebreakers are pro-town.ekiM wrote:How can getting activity going be anti-town?Beefster wrote:[Ythan attacked] a totally non-threatening random vote. It got the activity going, but that's not necessarily pro-town.
Or perhaps being a village idiot as town thus making the rest of the town fling accusations at you. That gets the activity going, doesn't it? And I would call it anti-town. (This case is not applicable. It's just to prove a point.)
If you think he's straight-up lying you should think he's scum, as town have no reason to lie. So why aren't you voting him?Prox wrote:I can't deny this, but I don't believe you. It seems like you backtracked to cover your contradiction. You can't change my mind about this.Alduskkel wrote:Back from vacation. Need to catch up a fair bit. Just reached the stupid stuff over my random vote. Point is, I closed my eyes and pointed. Then I eenie meenie miney moed, changing my finger position each time.
Alduskkel wrote:Why would I lie about a random vote?
Seriously, this is absurd. If you have an explanation of how something is scummy, why not give it?Prox wrote:I have my thoughts.
HEY, you know what you could've done in the SAME AMOUNT OF TIME it took you to write this? Give an example of why someone might lie about a random vote, if you can think of one. That'd be 10* more useful.Ythan wrote:Are you asking why you'd lie about a random vote as if it's preposterous for a player to do that? If not then word your question better.
Answers on a postcard.ekiM wrote:How so specifically?Zajnet wrote:[Fonz]'s case on Beefster seems very contrived.
Why does that bother you?Netlava wrote:The fact that he bothered to differentiate between the 2 is what bothers me.Zajnet wrote:Not knowing what active lurking means isn't a scum tell, but I think some of the other things Fonz has been saying could be.
Netlava wrote:@drmyshottyizsik: Just curious, did you "meta" me btw?Which games did you read? What conclusions did you draw?drmyshottyizsik wrote:yep
I asked...Prox wrote:I think talking about those things would constitute as rolefishing, and help the mafia. Do you disagree?
What IProx wrote:Because, really, can't you guess why scum might "randomly" vote a player on the Day after N0?
So you think Ald is "known scum" but you're not even trying to convince anyone else of this? In fact you're specifically holding back the reasons why you think this (I think..), to the extent that I only just worked them out myself.Prox wrote:The case on Al isn't currently strong enough to get him lynched today. And there's more than one scum. I'd rather have a known scum alive N1 than an unknown one; this game has a vig in it.
It sounds more like you forgot that you're pretending to find Ythan highly suspicious.Dry-fit wrote:Ythan himself said scum would pretend to scumhunt.Netlava wrote:If Ythan is trying to scumhunt, then that means you think he's town, right?Dry-fit wrote:Bizarre. Ythan appears to be trying to scumhunt as far as I can tell.
Uhh, so that's one positive contribution to the game in two and a half weeks of play. You really don't seem very inquisitive.Dry-fit wrote:Not really. I don't think anyone questioned Ythan's motive for asking the question before me, which I found odd.ekiM wrote:4 posts about Ythan starting at post 89, after other people had asked basically all the same stuff.
Done.The Fonz wrote:Btw can some1 put a post in the vla thread 4 me? My computer died, am posting from phone. may be a day or 2 before back online properly.
Zajnet wrote:Known for sure: VVCT???
If drmyshottyizsik is telling the truth: VVCDDT?
You know we lose if we lynch a townie today?yabbaguy wrote:My plan is to play this out without roleclaiming, and if we get scum lynched, then we might have a scenario of one confirmed Town, the Doctor, in the final LyLo, which raises the Town win probability up, or two Doctors and a Blocker puts Blocker in the driver's seat, the only other town PR I could plausibly see exist at this point. If we go ahead and get a Doctor to claim, we may get confirmed Town now, but we lose him in the LyLo that really matters.
D vs DDD is 37% vs. 2%. Discounting this.yabbaguy wrote:A Doctor who seems to be counterclaiming isn't actually counterclaiming if it's VVCDDDT!
Not seeing why this is so terrible. Explain?yabbaguy wrote:There's also VVCCDDT which gives them the license to bullshit any powerclaim and get away with it.
A solid 5-1 probability argument swayed me a lot more than anything else I was getting out of the game. The four townie deaths didn't help me figure anything out, and the general quality of the town has been low, making it rather hard to distinguish scummy behavior from poor town play.yabbaguy wrote:And I still want ekiM to explain why he used statistics back there to decide on shotty. Like, solely statistics. Nothing else. The math is good, but if you're informed, you know it's actually a 100% chance of shotty flipping Town.