ZazieR wrote:Well, actually, the Sens-way has resulted in discussion. The only discussion it hasn't taken care of is your vote against OP and the posts responding to it. But tell me, is 'lurking' a concrete reason for suspicions and/or votes?
And if you want to use your plan day 1, then why haven't you said who you think OP's partner is?
As for the above methods of random lynching, 1 is bad, 2 is good.
My vote against OP was partially a prod/pressure vote, because he'd said stuff but not yet weighed in on the more serious part of the evolving discussion - your L-1 vote on Crazy and the reactions thereto, and in fact, had not really said too much outside an RVS argument with Crazy.
Why is lurking a scumtell? Basically, because (in my humble opinion) the optimal town strategy is to pull as much information as we can out of everyone. Consistent contribution is the best way to achieve that; we need to make everyone participate in discussion lest scum lurk so they don't have to risk drawing attention to themselves or their partners and don't leave a trail to read when we go looking for probably scumpairs etc. Lurkers provide only the information that they're not around and doing something extremely anti-town.
ZazieR wrote:But first, a wagon have to get started against a scum, before the other scum can disagree. With the Sens-way, this is more likely to happen. And I'm not going to explain it any further as it would only ruin the information we can get from it.
Also, if you got the impression that I was saying that discussion day 1 is bad, I was not. I'm saying that the discussion in my previous game, that was based upon scumhunting day 1, lead to the loss of the town.
Well, I'm glad to know that you think discussion Day 1 isn't bad. From the way I'm reading it, your approach to the Sens-method (which doesn't, if I recall, advocate any discussion Day 1, just fast random bandwagoning and lynching) is to attempt to take multiple new directions Day 1 and be willing to see any wagon that got close enough to the lynch. I don't personally think that such is quite optimal; I sort of think it might be prone to the downsides of two more extreme plans (not as much discussion to lean on Day 2, assuming we need it, as we might have, but enough discussion that scum could manipulate the wagons to their benefit) but am not entirely sure that such would be the case. I agree with pressure being put in multiple directions Day 1, and I also agree that discussion isn't bad - it's by far our best tool in this game.
ZazieR wrote:Crazy
Though I too think that having no discussion is ridiculous,
a random die roll cannot be influenced by scum
, but a random wagon can be.
Well, actually, it can.
Really? How?
I'm actually planning on doing a pairings probability analysis in this post and then popcorning to someone. We've obviously come to the point where everyone should have formed some more concrete thoughts and suspicions.
The new Crazy/Zazie arguments, which I'll address first; I'm tired and my brain feels a little fried, so I'll lay this out for myself as clearly as possible, and you can all watch the cogs in my head turning.
Crazy reacted to Zazie's L-1 vote by, to paraphrase him, daring the scum to hammer him. Zazie's argument was that Crazy's reaction, basically dissuading a rash hammer on himself, was scummy because
a) No townie would want to actively dissuade scum from giving themselves away like that in this setup
however
b) It would dissuade townies from hammering in the case that he was town, which scum would actively want
And here b), as I belive Crazy later argues, is null because neither a Townie nor a scumbag would want to have been quickhammered by a townie at that point. The motivation there is absolutely null. Crazy also explains that his point in making clear that he was at L-1 and the consequences of any quick vote on him were clear, especially to townies, and says he didn't believe scum would rashly hammer him at that point. I agree on both counts; the points made by Crazy here are fair and not scummy - null mostly.
Crazy wrote:And I don't particularly think I was cautious... unless you mean about making a note that I was at L-1... but there I was afraid that someone would accidentally hammer me, not conciously hammer me.
Here we got some confirmation of that line-o-thought.
Zazie is still bothered by the fact that Crazy emphasized the consequences of a quickhammer at that point (by inviting the scum to hammer him and so get lynched Day 2).
Crazy wrote:I still don't get how that makes me scum... it seems your issue is that I'm town and I'm alerting the scum not to hammer me. I'll admit that could be perceived as anti-town (though I don't think it's a big deal), but how it makes me scum I have no idea. If your issue is that I'm alerting the
scum
not to hammer me, then that implies that I'm town, doesn't it?
If your issue is that I'm alerting the
town
not to hammer me, well then, that's easy to see from a town point of view, right? Assuming I'm town, and stupid townie hammers me on Page 3, then they'd be lynched tomorrow and scum would win.
So what is really making me scummy, here?
Basically I'm inclined to agree with Crazy that I don't see more than null motivation to make that statement, and the basic flow of his explanations and such gives me a slight town gut. From Zazie's point-of-view, with the semi-Sens-method she's espousing, it's possible she's seeing it differently and I disagree.
However
she posted this after the post I noted above:
ZazieR wrote:Uhm, you weren't thinking about a townie hammering when you wrote this:
Crazy wrote:Scum can go ahead and hammer me, btw.
Especially in a setup where the town wins if they find just one scum.
LAL?
Unvote Vote Crazy
Crazy outlined and addressed two possible concerns of Zazie's with his statement: that he was dissuading townies from quickhammering and that he was dissuading/warning scum against quickhammering him. Both had reasonable town motivations as he explained. Then, after Zazie reiterates her concerns and Crazy quotes his point about dissuading Townies from quickhammering him, Zazie brings back the original post, says that he was obviously not talking about a townie hammering him, and votes him for 'lying'. There is no lying here; Crazy was unsure of your concerns and addressed two possibilities. He requotes one and you say that such
wasn't
the concern you were seeing and he must be lying because that wasn't what he had been talking about? He was not lying and frankly you stating that in such stark terms looks false.
Forgive me if I'm rambling only semi-coherently here, but this looks like junk and scummy. It's weird, too, that OP votes Crazy with nothing but that when it's not true.
Unvote; Vote: ZazieR
I unfortunately am being called to bed; this post took a while. Pairing probability suspicions coming tomorrow ASAP; for now, content yourselves with a list of individual players:
Suspects
Zazie OP
Chief
kirroha Crazy
Zazie, OP, etc.
