Tarballs is right. Of course, we have to have discussion to some extent, but this is not a normal game where the town is the uninformed majority and benefits the most from discussion. Since the assassin is the uninformed one here, discussion is more likely to help them figure out what is going on. Theory posts generally should be OK, but speculation and detailed reasoning probably isn't such a good idea.ElectricBadger wrote:WaitwhatWHAT? We shouldn't discuss anything...?!Tarballs wrote:By the way, I believe we should keep the discussion in minimum, as discussion helps the uninformed people (in this case the assassin) the most. That's what I've understood anyway.
Hypocrisy is still just as good of a reason for a randomvote as, say, omgusing.ZazieR wrote:Let me tell you, that doesn't change a thing about the hypocricy.
That's not quite what I meant. But maybe the 'Breaking Strategy' section of this article explains a bit.ElectricBadger wrote:WaitwhatWHAT? We shouldn't discuss anything...?!
Your vote was a random vote?Tarballs wrote:Hypocrisy is still just as good of a reason for a randomvote as, say, omgusing.ZazieR wrote:Let me tell you, that doesn't change a thing about the hypocricy.
That's not quite what I meant. But maybe the 'Breaking Strategy' section of this article explains a bit.ElectricBadger wrote:WaitwhatWHAT? We shouldn't discuss anything...?!
Umm, can you show me, please, any time before when someone (preferably you) "random-FoSed?"Deux wrote:It wasn't serious suspicion at all. Seriously, it was like post 23 of the game, how could I possibly have any real suspicions yet. Just responding to what had been said with another random vote. The reason I voted Badger and only FoS'ed DeathNote was that Badger voted you for but DeathNote only agreed without taking action.
Is there anything else besides a hunch that influenced this vote?Kdub wrote:Vote: Deuxieme Octopus
Call it a hunch, but his last post gives me a bad feeling about him.
Zazier wrote:Regarding Post 18, the personal attacks are noted.
This is actually true. We actually have to fool the assassin by not acting differently towards any player. The king should be pressed just as easily as anyone else. I'm not used to this for a town-sided alignment. Used to scum being the informed ones.Zazier wrote:Wouldn't we out the king if we don't mention him?
Correct my interpretation if I'm wrong, but did you not say that Deathnote made a tell that indicated his alignment. You said you would reveal said tell if it was shown. But wouldn't it already be revealed if it were to be shown? I'm just not quite getting it completely.Zazier wrote:Secondly, as I stated, if DN would have shown that tell, I would have pointed it out. What don't you understand about it
Isn't discussion the only way to correctly pinpoint the assassin? Or do you think eventually we'd hit him before we gave anything away about the king?Tarballs wrote:By the way, I believe we should keep the discussion in minimum, as discussion helps the uninformed people (in this case the assassin) the most. That's what I've understood anyway.
Do you feel people shouldn't have to explain their votes?Crazy wrote:Vote: Zazie
Got a hunch.
You say it's not serious, but your justification appears to contradict that classification.DO wrote:It wasn't serious suspicion at all. Seriously, it was like post 23 of the game, how could I possibly have any real suspicions yet. Just responding to what had been said with another random vote. The reason I voted Badger and only FoS'ed DeathNote was that Badger voted you for but DeatNote only agreed without taking action.
Why another random vote at this stage? I think we've exited the random stage.DO wrote:Also, vote: ZazieR for not condensing all that into one post.
.Crazy wrote:Of course, some information will help the assassin, which is why some cases should remain silent
I've definitely seen individuals random FOS. But, I certainly find his explanation to be on a more serious than he describes it to be. And it's especially odd that he resorts back to another random vote on Zazzier.Crazy wrote:Umm, can you show me, please, any time before when someone (preferably you) "random-FoSed?"
I actually really agree with this. I've played only one game of AitP before, but there, I brought up this idea and got the town to go along with it. Town sort of screwed up that game in that we all mistakenly labeled the assassin as obvguard in our minds, allowing her to make it to a 3-man endgame before being lynched. But even then, town still ended up wining because the assassin had little idea which of the two the king was.Tarballs wrote:By the way, I believe we should keep the discussion in minimum, as discussion helps the uninformed people (in this case the assassin) the most. That's what I've understood anyway.
Look at it this way, the town's number one priority here is not to find the assassin, but to keep the king hidden from him. Its not that we would have absolutely no discussion, but its possible to narrow down who the assassin may or may not be with minimal discussion.Lynx The Antithesis wrote: Isn't discussion the only way to correctly pinpoint the assassin? Or do you think eventually we'd hit him before we gave anything away about the king?
I feel they don't always need to, especially in this setup, and I really don't like your repeated fishing for explanations. I don't know if your doing this because you really feel lots of discussion is really pro-town, or because your the assassin feeling for if anyone's busing the king, but either way, I really want you dead right now.Lynx The Antithesis wrote: Do you feel people shouldn't have to explain their votes?
In some cases, no, they shouldn't have to. In that game I quoted, Korlash (a guard) made a subtle breadcrumb that revealed that he knew who the King (PokerFace) was, but then MCD (assassin) voted for Korlash, which lead to an eventual wagon on MCD Day 2.Lynx wrote:Do you feel people shouldn't have to explain their votes?
If an assassin votes someone without giving a reason, then he's just bluffing. And that should be easier to root out than an honest vote from a guard/the king.Lynx wrote:Wouldn't this allow the assassin to follow the same formula and not have to back up his votes? This would make him even more difficult to find I feel.
I acknowledged that his play here may simply be the result of his ignorance to the setup, but at the same time, he could still very easily be the assassin fishing for info. I'm not calling for his lynch though because I feel he's definitely the assassin, but because whether he is or not, I feel his play right now is somewhat of a detriment to the town. However though, I'll admit I did feel that my calling for his lynch was a bit premature after I posted that. I should give him a chance to see if he'll quit pressing people for info like he was in his last post.Crazy wrote:@Vaya - Lynx just seems to have some sort of ignorance of the setup as of now. I don't find that particularly scummy. It seems to me like you're trying to flush someone out on a null-tell.
Can I get a link to the game you were referring to?
How can finding the assassin be that much less important than keeping the king hidden? With each lynch the assassin suriving it only betters his chances of landing his suicide kill. Of course, it is extemely necessary to keep the king guarded, but I think everyone realizes this already.Vaya wrote:Look at it this way, the town's number one priority here is not to find the assassin, but to keep the king hidden from him. Its not that we would have absolutely no discussion, but its possible to narrow down who the assassin may or may not be with minimal discussion.
Its better to take multiple shots at the assassin with little info behind them, then to have a lot of discussion like a normal game of mafia, throw around suspicion and wagon a few people here and there, and settle on a lynch and nail the assassin first thing. He would be able to tell who the town was not seriously considering to lynch and be able to take a good shot at the king that way.
In most normal games I think you should be expected to fully explain your rationale behind a vote. However, I can certainly see times that would warrant discretion in this setup. You've clearly explained what you've found scummy with me. Doesn't that go against your suggested strategy for this style game?Vaya wrote:feel they don't always need to, especially in this setup, and I really don't like your repeated fishing for explanations. I don't know if your doing this because you really feel lots of discussion is really pro-town, or because your the assassin feeling for if anyone's busing the king, but either way, I really want you dead right now.
Our votes shouldn't always be honest though either. Especially when we press the king.Crazy wrote:If an assassin votes someone without giving a reason, then he's just bluffing. And that should be easier to root out than an honest vote from a guard/the king.
Is this vote random as well?Deux wrote:I just want a bandwagon on ZazieR
I still wouldn't expect any guard to attack a non-King with a crap case just to bluff it. It seems rather silly, because it doesn't mask the King; it just makes you look like scum. So I'd totally lynch someone that did that.Lynx wrote:Our votes shouldn't always be honest though either. Especially when we press the king.
Oh of course, but I was just stating there is a certain element of bluffing on the town's part as well. We always look for the sincerity behind someone's case in every game. This is evident in every game. I just don't see how we can manage this without some level of explanation regarding their vote. Also, town players are quite capable of making crappy cases. Does that make them more inclined to be scum for you only in this style of game?Crazy wrote:Okay, Vaya, so at least your opinions match your meta. Meh.
I still wouldn't expect any guard to attack a non-King with a crap case just to bluff it. It seems rather silly, because it doesn't mask the King; it just makes you look like scum. So I'd totally lynch someone that did that.Lynx wrote:Our votes shouldn't always be honest though either. Especially when we press the king.
Its simple really, if the assassin figures our who our king is, we lose, period, no matter how many other people are alive. If we have to spend, say, three lynches before we nail the assassin, but he still doesn't know who the king is, we're better off.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How can finding the assassin be that much less important than keeping the king hidden? With each lynch the assassin suriving it only betters his chances of landing his suicide kill. Of course, it is extemely necessary to keep the king guarded, but I think everyone realizes this already.
Perhaps I wasn't clear by what I meant here. What I'm saying is that its better to spend multiple lynches on people without taking tons of time to deeply discuss whether or not each person is really the assassin and whether or not we should lynch each of them.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How do you take multiple shots at someone with little info behind them?
I'm not saying by any means that we should never explain ourselves at all. I'm really referring to the sort of situation that Crazy mentioned earlier, in which case, other guards should be able to see the case without you having to spell it out for them.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How can you organize a lynch without an element of convincing others that you case has some merit behind it? If we all just vote people and call it gut, I don't see how we could possibly progress very far.
Sometimes explanations are bad. In this case, my problem with you has only to do with your play and not with interactions with the king, so I have no problem explaining myself.Lynx The Antithesis wrote: In most normal games I think you should be expected to fully explain your rationale behind a vote. However, I can certainly see times that would warrant discretion in this setup. You've clearly explained what you've found scummy with me. Doesn't that go against your suggested strategy for this style game?
Vaya wrote:Its simple really, if the assassin figures our who our king is, we lose, period, no matter how many other people are alive. If we have to spend, say, three lynches before we nail the assassin, but he still doesn't know who the king is, we're better off.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How can finding the assassin be that much less important than keeping the king hidden? With each lynch the assassin suriving it only betters his chances of landing his suicide kill. Of course, it is extemely necessary to keep the king guarded, but I think everyone realizes this already.
Yeah, I agree with this.
Perhaps I wasn't clear by what I meant here. What I'm saying is that its better to spend multiple lynches on people without taking tons of time to deeply discuss whether or not each person is really the assassin and whether or not we should lynch each of them.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How do you take multiple shots at someone with little info behind them?
So, essentially, your view is that more discussion is detrimental to the town, correct?
I'm not saying by any means that we should never explain ourselves at all. I'm really referring to the sort of situation that Crazy mentioned earlier, in which case, other guards should be able to see the case without you having to spell it out for them.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:How can you organize a lynch without an element of convincing others that you case has some merit behind it? If we all just vote people and call it gut, I don't see how we could possibly progress very far.
I think you're are overestimating how well each player would respond to a vote from somebody. Guards don't know other guards so I think most will would approach with a degree of skepticism. Basically, I don't see how a lynch would be organized when you simply expect others to see your case. Again, I don't think everyone is necessarily so perceptive.Sometimes explanations are bad. In this case, my problem with you has only to do with your play and not with interactions with the king, so I have no problem explaining myself.Lynx The Antithesis wrote: In most normal games I think you should be expected to fully explain your rationale behind a vote. However, I can certainly see times that would warrant discretion in this setup. You've clearly explained what you've found scummy with me. Doesn't that go against your suggested strategy for this style game?
Your problem with me is my inquisitive nature regarding other people's voting. I just don't see how laying down a vote prefacing it with "I have a hunch" or "on gut" should just be let to go by. If everyone was given a pass for this standard, we would get no where. Only the one's bold enough to press through it would be subject to any real scrutiny while others who follow this trend would just float by.
Not liking any of this, personally. We shouldn't talk much, presents a case against Lynx, when confronted backs away from it with the feeble excuse that we need to have more discussion before we do it. Lurker assassin has tested the waters before coming forward to feel out a lynch?Vaya wrote:I acknowledged that his play here may simply be the result of his ignorance to the setup, but at the same time, he could still very easily be the assassin fishing for info. I'm not calling for his lynch though because I feel he's definitely the assassin, but because whether he is or not, I feel his play right now is somewhat of a detriment to the town. However though, I'll admit I did feel that my calling for his lynch was a bit premature after I posted that. I should give him a chance to see if he'll quit pressing people for info like he was in his last post.
I already explained why we shouldn't talk too much, you can disagree, but you can't say my motivations are purely anti-town. I never backed off my case, I only said that calling for an immediate quick lynch was premature of me. And I'm a lurker because I didn't post for one day? I'm fairly active now.ElectricBadger wrote: Not liking any of this, personally. We shouldn't talk much, presents a case against Lynx, when confronted backs away from it with the feeble excuse that we need to have more discussion before we do it. Lurker assassin has tested the waters before coming forward to feel out a lynch?
What I've been suggesting here is that we make quicklynches based on a minimal amount of info. Basically, like the "breaking strategy" referred to in the wiki, but with slightly more informed lynches.ElectricBadger wrote:And the same question to you as I'm waiting for from Tarballs: if we don't discuss things, what mechanic do we use to vote, and how do we avoid the assassin influencing that without obviously avoiding a quick lynch against the king?
Entirely wrong. If the assassin pushes a solid case against someone, and the town is reluctant to follow it, he's probably just found the king and that would be great for him, regardless of whether he's lynched for it or not.ElectricBadger wrote: As I see it, the only one who wouldn't want to make a solid case for a lynch is the assassin, who has to worry he'll tip his hand by making a concerted attempt against the king.