Consulmaker II: the Pyrrhic War - Game over.

[ribwich]

I like that idea, and would be fully willing to use it.

[dramonic]

Thanks for not telling me the game has began X_X

[Primate]

Uh, it only takes until D3 under worst case conditions, and so does your suggested plan.

The more I think about your plan, the more I prefer it to mine and sens. You lose the single free consul choice from my plan, but I quite like the fact it gives a much higher chance of two consuls than mine or sens does. There's also the fact that if both consulmakers are town, it's a very strong play.

Assuming we randomize the groups, I'm up for that.

[Primate]

Actually, It's pretty much a certainty under sens plan isn't it, not a 'worst case', ignore me on the first line there.

[SensFan]

I'm not a fan of this idea, since it would involve guaranteeing that at least one of the consuls tomorrow is scum. If you're insisting on not allowing either one of us to die today, I would propose this alternative: everyone divides themselves up into two groups. I will guarantee that the consuls tomorrow are one person from each group.

how about dividing everyone in two groups A and B
and you choosing both consuls out of A and Jack choosing both consuls out of B?
that way even if one consul dies, we still know who of you is the real consulmaker.


PS:

FoS: chesskid

, for his nonsense-attack on me.

This is a great idea, and doesn't take until D3 to kill one of the fakes. Makes me think Sens is scum trying to drag out offing one of his teammates.

I'm not such a big fan of this idea, since it leads to the question of how the groups will be split up. Besides, I really don't see the downside to killing one of them for sure on D3, with the bonus of added info from a Scumconsul.

[Rabies]

I'm not a fan of this idea, since it would involve guaranteeing that at least one of the consuls tomorrow is scum. If you're insisting on not allowing either one of us to die today, I would propose this alternative: everyone divides themselves up into two groups. I will guarantee that the consuls tomorrow are one person from each group.

how about dividing everyone in two groups A and B
and you choosing both consuls out of A and Jack choosing both consuls out of B?
that way even if one consul dies, we still know who of you is the real consulmaker.


PS:

FoS: chesskid

, for his nonsense-attack on me.

This is a great idea, and doesn't take until D3 to kill one of the fakes. Makes me think Sens is scum trying to drag out offing one of his teammates.

^I agree with this.

Lol i smell omgus from the consul. OMGUSOMGUSOMGUS.
Also way to completely steal someone elses idea there bro.

OMGUS is a hackneyed buzzword, not a scumtell.
Would you like to try again?

[ribwich]

I'm not a fan of this idea, since it would involve guaranteeing that at least one of the consuls tomorrow is scum. If you're insisting on not allowing either one of us to die today, I would propose this alternative: everyone divides themselves up into two groups. I will guarantee that the consuls tomorrow are one person from each group.

how about dividing everyone in two groups A and B
and you choosing both consuls out of A and Jack choosing both consuls out of B?
that way even if one consul dies, we still know who of you is the real consulmaker.


PS:

FoS: chesskid

, for his nonsense-attack on me.

This is a great idea, and doesn't take until D3 to kill one of the fakes. Makes me think Sens is scum trying to drag out offing one of his teammates.

I'm not such a big fan of this idea, since it leads to the question of how the groups will be split up. Besides, I really don't see the downside to killing one of them for sure on D3, with the bonus of added info from a Scumconsul.

Is there still a way to roll dice on here? Roll a 2-sided dice for each player. If this ends with the 2 groups being uneven, roll a (# of players in larger group)-sided die, and select that player from the list to go to the other group. Repeat until the groups are balanced.

I don't see how there's any "bonus" to having a confirmed scum player be consul. There might be info found in the actions of a consul that was later found to be scum, but someone that became consul at the same time as being confirmed scum would just force a no lynch.

[Nathanael]

how about simply splitting player-list in half?
it should be random enough for our purposes.

[Primate]

I'm not a fan of this idea, since it would involve guaranteeing that at least one of the consuls tomorrow is scum. If you're insisting on not allowing either one of us to die today, I would propose this alternative: everyone divides themselves up into two groups. I will guarantee that the consuls tomorrow are one person from each group.

how about dividing everyone in two groups A and B
and you choosing both consuls out of A and Jack choosing both consuls out of B?
that way even if one consul dies, we still know who of you is the real consulmaker.


PS:

FoS: chesskid

, for his nonsense-attack on me.

This is a great idea, and doesn't take until D3 to kill one of the fakes. Makes me think Sens is scum trying to drag out offing one of his teammates.

I'm not such a big fan of this idea, since it leads to the question of how the groups will be split up. Besides, I really don't see the downside to killing one of them for sure on D3, with the bonus of added info from a Scumconsul.

We are not going to get any information we can use from a confirmed scum consul day 2. It will all be absolutely suspect.

And I think the split has to be random. Anything else just opens a huge can of worms. That said, I'm not sure how we're meant to do that without dicetags (I just looked, they've not been included in the new forum yet, and people are saying this is a good thing because they are a provable randomiser, I kind of agree). Possibly the way to do it is to get both consulmakers to agree on a randomish method (alphabetically by username, signup order), that way at know for sure that we've got one non-scum helping decide.

OMGUS is a hackneyed buzzword, not a scumtell.

It contains a lot of things under its umbrella that are scumtells though. Couple of big ones can be called OMGUS. Don't think what happened between Nath and Chess there specifically was of any particular note though.

[Jack]

I'm not interested in the method.

Let's talk about how lowell and porochaz are scummy.

I don't like chesskid either.

[Jack]

Given that self-voting is possible unless I msised something, why are moer people not self vogting?

Did you deliberately make spelling errors in this post?

[Nathanael]

mod, are we allowed to use cryptography?

UNVOTE: VOTE: Rabies

[ribwich]

how about simply splitting player-list in half?
it should be random enough for our purposes.

Possibly the way to do it is to get both consulmakers to agree on a randomish method (alphabetically by username, signup order), that way at know for sure that we've got one non-scum helping decide.

Either of these would be fine with me. I really don't care how the list gets split, since using this method should make tomorrow's lynch easy. Even if it ends with two scum consuls, as long as neither is confirmed scum, they should go along with the plan if they don't want to get attention thrown to them.


Why am I not surprised that Jack is less interested in doing this now that it's becoming harder for scum to use it to their advantage?

[Primate]

I'm not interested in the method.

Let's talk about how lowell and porochaz are scummy.

I don't like chesskid either.

I actually think lowell and chesskid been ok.

But then I suck at mafia sooo.

Why am I not surprised that Jack is less interested in doing this now that it's becoming harder for scum to use it to their advantage?

Yeah, that felt like a positioning move.

[Rabies]

It contains a lot of things under its umbrella that are scumtells though. Couple of big ones can be called OMGUS. Don't think what happened between Nath and Chess there specifically was of any particular note though.

Um, OK.

chesskid's arguement isn't this sophisticated, though. It's just a vague dismissal of Nat with these meaningless five letters and he expects us to find meaning in them. Whenever someone doesn't clearly guide us through why we should think someone else is scum, that seems indicative of

acting

to me.

Speaking of vagueness...

I'm not interested in the method.

Let's talk about how lowell and porochaz are scummy.

I don't like chesskid either.

I think the liar among you and ribwich is scum, and I think it's you (ribwich's posts and attitude are more honest and genuine than yours).

I also think it would be strategically advantageous this early on to scum to bus their buddy in a side note (chesskid) rather than overtly. (PS: lowell does seem townish to me; porochaz has only posted once, so it's too early to call for him)

[inHimshallibe]

Yeah, Lowell seems town.

[Primate]

chesskid's arguement isn't this sophisticated, though. It's just a vague dismissal of Nat with these meaningless five letters and he expects us to find meaning in them. Whenever someone doesn't clearly guide us through why we should think someone else is scum, that seems indicative of acting to me.

To me, chesskids looking to start an argument with someone. He's throwing around subpar arguments, but it's because he's trying to scrap, not to intentionally mislead. I don't really have a problem with that.

[Rabies]

To me, chesskids looking to start an argument with someone. He's throwing around subpar arguments, but it's because he's trying to scrap, not to intentionally mislead. I don't really have a problem with that.

mmmm, I diagree. If chesskid were trying to have a productive arguement (scrap), I think he would make more of an effort to say something that people could actually debate over.

[Powerrox93]

@Jack post 119: Enough important that we should take it into consideration

@Nathanael post 132: +1. Why not split the list in two random half

[Primate]

To me, chesskids looking to start an argument with someone. He's throwing around subpar arguments, but it's because he's trying to scrap, not to intentionally mislead. I don't really have a problem with that.

mmmm, I disagree. If chesskid were trying to have a productive argument (scrap), I think he would make more of an effort to say something that people could actually debate over.

That depends entirely on whether he had something that people could actually debate over, I suppose.

[Jack]

What's been town about lowell?

Why am I not surprised that Jack is less interested in doing this now that it's becoming harder for scum to use it to their advantage?

I'm not interested in which method.

[ribwich]

You seemed fine with it back when the method of proving I'm consulmaker was just I call the 2 consuls before night starts (easier for mafia to exploit)

You're "not interested" now that it's this two groups idea. (much harder for mafia to exploit since they don't actually know who the consuls will be)

[Jack]

Not interested in the

method

. aka, the way it is done.

chesskid's arguement isn't this sophisticated, though. It's just a vague dismissal of Nat with these meaningless five letters and he expects us to find meaning in them. Whenever someone doesn't clearly guide us through why we should think someone else is scum, that seems indicative of acting to me.

To me, chesskids looking to start an argument with someone. He's throwing around subpar arguments, but it's because he's trying to scrap, not to intentionally mislead. I don't really have a problem with that.

You agree it's not genuine, but why is "trying to scrap" townish?

[ribwich]

So you wouldn't be opposed to the two groups idea, you just don't like any of the ideas given so far on how to create those two groups?

[Primate]

You agree it's not genuine, but why is "trying to scrap" townish?

It draws attention to the player and can get out of your control quickly. It's risky, mainly.

And you misread me, I'm not saying he's necessarily putting on an act or anything, could be genuine, could be tactic, could be bits of both. I don't know the player well enough to say what he's doing in that regard.