Welcome Chaim. I'm glad that vote didn't count ...
I'm all Civil this game I assure you.
neil wrote:
He's a bit more experienced according to the boards...
What do you mean, "according to the boards" ?
What boards?
neil wrote:
...therefore he can play "Town" a lot easier then others
I would like to disagree with you on this point. It maybe relatively common that Ic's get "automatic town points" because of
their IC status. But a completely green player could have a natural aptitude for the game, or could be a good liar or faker.
And some people are terrible liars who could play 20 games and still be bad at playing scum. I think it's more of a player by player basis.
If I were playing with someone irl, for example, and thought they were very good, I'd find myself watching them
a little more closely than usual. But that's a person by person basis, and not based on number of games played. You're already
planning to treat/observe me closer based on my status...
That said, I do consider myself a decent player ^^
Not sure how I feel about your calling someone out for "avoiding lurking" ( x= posting ??) this early. You might be a little
over zealous in your accusations so early. And attemtping to fabricate evidence. Finger pointing straight away...
nevermind wrote:
wait how did you know? cop doesn't have investigation yet, so you must be my partner!
vote: civil
Damn...well, we blew it.
Answers to Questions- Part 1:
-Personally, I prefer the RVS. The other accepted format is the Random-Question-Stage. I've been in a few games with the latter opening.
And while it does generate a lot posting and content, it doesn't seem to be as good at starting an F11.
-The Random-Voting-Stage generally ends by itself, in a way. I mean one player, or more, have to be becoming serious about a point
or accusation, or someone slips up, or whatever, but it's more of a natural progression (imo). People do often claim to have been the one
that ended the RVS. But it's still the RVS until multiple people (or the game itself) stop being random/silly.
-That would be a slow start! It's only a matter of time in my experience. ALthough that would be pretty dead if the RVS continued on and on.
SOmetimes player's chat and joke around for a few pages. But sooner or later, someone's gonna go, 'Hey so-and-so, that was a really WEIRD joke.'
-I've never been in a game where one person got a lot of votes in the RVS. Although I've read games where people got sent to L-1 with random
votes by the second page. Imo, there is no maximum. But expect raised eyebrows from me if you're the third to jump on.
-Here, you've answered your own question? If you mean the question in terms of "can a human being really behave randomly", I'm sure
there has been an enormous amount of interesting discussion on that in scientific literature. I believe it's generally accpeted that,
whatever means are used, or whatever joke/reason accompanies the vote, a person's random vote is, for all intents and purposes, random.
Even if no one placed a second vote on anyone else during the first voting, especially with the last two players to vote,
who one way or another (or by all appearances)
chose
to vote for someone who didn't have a vote yet, rather than voting for someone who already had a vote,
there's not much useful information that can be taken away from that "choice", or that hesitation to place the second/third vote. There's plenty of
reasons why both a scum and a townie might avoid doing that. There's no statistics supporting the idea that a scum would avoid BW'ing that early more than a townie
would. And even if there were statistics, it'd soon be null because its a simple controlled behavior that people could manipulate
too easily.
(All views expressed herein reflect the opinions and views of it's author, and in no way represent -true- reality)
Part 2: The End
Sorry about the length here, especially when we may have some interesting developments here.
IC comment:
Ups wrote:
Yes, the timing was off as your large post in which you voted came out 2 minutes before mine, and I was not aware that it existed when I clicked submit.
Simultaneous post. Usually, in this event, a person begins their next post with "SIMUL:"
To clarify that they hadnt seen the post before their's when they posted, and to clear up any of the misunderstanding or confusion that
can result from simultaneous posting. It happens more frequently in games than one might think.
Ups wrote:
What if no one reacts to anything? - Make a reaction, I guess. Perhaps by starting a bandwagon and gauging reactions, but it really shouldn't get to that point.
I really liked this answer. Actively provoking a response from people is a fairly common tactic used to considerable effect by many players.
Ups wrote:
...lynching people without proper evidence building is anti-town.
Though I think its excusable in cases of extreme frustration, this is also definitely true.
Ups wrote:
That line sounds to me like you want to appear to be scumhunting, without actually taking a stand. That type of passive play is weak for town.
I can definitely see where you are coming from on this. Neil's answer was satisfactory for me.
Alright Neil, since you've spoken out and spoken up, you are getting attention, and will cerainly get more:
neil wrote:
All of these votes in such a short time... it seems like that'd be the mafia's goal right? To try and get a lynch going on us and try to take us out...
It's not really much of a risk at this stage of the game.
Now I don't want to flat-out say that this next quote of your's contradicts the first, but...
neil wrote:
Alright, I'll follow this method just so that we can start eliminating people...
You take efforts to sound cautious and watchful, yet do at the same time come off as kinda trigger-happy. I'd even go so far as to say that it's a little
dishonest of you to accuse Ups of being inconsistent. Becasue I feel that you've gone both ways, on a sprint, passing between the two opposites
(by accusing him of a contradiction you are implying those behaviors are opposite) almost instantaneously. Sure you werent voting, but you have been the most serious
in your accusations thus far. The random votes get discussion going, they are not intended to lynch someone. Just because you random vote someone, doesnt mean
you want to kill them at this point. In fact, I would expect a townie player to understand that or to feel that way automatically. A scum could miss that...
Later in the game, a vote usually is more of a "kill someone" or pressure them to defend themselves from getting hung. But just about every other player in unusual there,
brand new players included, if you asked them if they wanted to kill the person they put their random vote on, they would probably say "no." Right?
I think its a rather unusual perspective for the situation. This quote above alone, is highly unusual.
neil wrote:
if you're interested in targeting me so be it, but please get your story correct.
Are you trying to not be defensive or trying to sound non-chalant about being targeted this early?
And hearing from everyone is essential. Sure, lynching people is great and it has to be done. But prefferably with some level of care and the fewest errors.
We get two misses (unless we have a doctor who pulls off two successful protections) and then we are at Lynch-or-Lose. Two misses and then if one of the remaining townies
places one wrong vote or makes one mistake, or is manipulated into making one mistake, we lose.
Yoenit, Spadille, Silver Bullet, steeeeeel waitin
Sorry about the length, wasnt supposed to happen.
