A Clash of Kings - A Divided Kingdom

[vezopiraka]

So who made that contract?
I don't remember a game where I didn't break at least two points.

@everyone: I think that for the first day or in some cases if we don't want to raise a hand we can raise the one who will be lynched so nobody could die because of it.

[vezopiraka]

So who made that contract?
I don't remember a game where I didn't break at least two points.

@everyone: I think that for the first day or in some cases if we don't want to raise a hand we can raise the one who will be lynched so nobody could die because of it.

[vezopiraka]

. So who made that contract?
I don't remember a game where I didn't break at least two points.

@everyone: I think that for the first day or in some cases if we don't want to raise a hand we can raise the one who will be lynched so nobody could die because of it.

[vezopiraka]

LOL. Triple post.

[LimMePls]

@Percy: I'm pretty sure the mod said that if the Hand dies we'll have to raise a new one. It fits with the flavor, which is why I said I liked it from a fluff perspective. That is what I meant by "always".

For those that don't know, in the stories the "Hand of the King" is a political office that serves the King directly. You can read a short wiki about it here: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Hand_of_the_King. In the recent history of the Seven Kingdoms, being the Hand has been really dangerous. The Hand leaves in disgrace if he is lucky.

[LimMePls]

@vezopiraka: Raise the one we're going to lynch? Why would we do that? That doesn't make any sense to me. Wouldn't it be better to just not raise anyone?

[MacavityLock]

Whichever method is used, the Hand of the King will become a double voter from the beginning of Day 2. The Hand may split the two votes. Both votes will be public.

The Hand may not be stripped of his title in any way. A new Hand will not be chosen on the Hand’s death.

[I doubt it]

Pay attention people. On the very post that announces the raising vote:

A Hand of the King will be raised when there is a simple majority (i.e. 14 votes). Alternatively, whoever has the most ‘raise’ votes at the time of the Day 1 lynch, will be raised.

Whichever method is used, the Hand of the King will become a double voter from the beginning of Day 2. The Hand may split the two votes. Both votes will be public.
The Hand may not be stripped of his title in any way. A new Hand will not be chosen on the Hand’s death.

We are electing a permanent doublevoter, and we don't have the option of raising no one. There will also be no replacement when/if the Hand dies, even though it would fit the books better if there was. So we should just raise whoever we think is most likely to be town, once we have enough information to make such a decision.

Since raising ourselves is allowed:

Unraise

Raise: I doubt it

You guys COMPLETELY misunderstood my point when I said "RVS is over".
RVS is a period of random voting. I had made a statement of nonrandom voting and suspicion, therefore it brought us out of the RVS.
I was NOT saying "RVS is over because RVS is stupid and it should end now."

Any attempt to

consciously

end RVS will most likely just result in a debate on whether or not it was premature and whether or not anyone has the right to decide when it's over. You probably didn't intend it, but declaring RVS over just serves as a distraction from scumhunting. It will end on its own.

I like the Richardwagon. There's some classic scumtells in there, plus all his arguments against CMAR are pretty ungrounded.

Unvote

Vote: RichardGHP

Finally, don't expect much from me until next Monday. My sister will have a graduation party so things are gonna be hectic for a while. Count this as

V/LA

I suppose, although I'll probably still post once or twice.

[Drippereth]

@Lynchmepls - Drippereth, assuming she's who I think she is, will only make newb townies and/or bad townies crumble under pressure whilst not actually finding scum.

^^^
RichardGHP = definite scum for downplaying the Drippereth hydra's legendary, awesome scumhunting (we get ourselves NK'd pretty early). You are safe to assume that we are comprised of Ellibereth & DrippingGoofball mind meld. So really. The scum doesn't have a prayer.

In other news, RichardGHP is also scum for suggesting we be a "policy lynch" especially in light of the above. We're more the scum's "policy NK."

Deer continues to be scum.

[LimMePls]

Oh. I'm sorry, I read that as "a new hand will be chosen upon his death". My bad everyone.

[vezopiraka]

That thing is not useful. So we have to pick a double voter? on day 1.
If we target scum we have a double voter scum.
If we raise town we have a double voter dead.
If we raise town scum may create WIFOM and make us lynch him.

All cases equal bad for town. I still suggest raising the one we are lynching

[LimMePls]

Unvote
Vote: Richard

I'm not satisfied with his answer to my policy lynch question. Do I misunderstand policy lynches? I thought policy lynches were things like "Lynch All Liars" and "Lynch All Lurkers". I hate the idea that you would lynch a certain player just because you dislike their play style.

I'm also not crazy about 62 and 99 attempting to prolong the RVS. 62 also seems a bit OMGUS to me. I'm not wild about a player unilaterally declaring the RVS over, but I see no reason to not accept that it is and move on. You seem desperate to go back to RVS with the pressure that is on you.

@Richard What did you mean if they are the player you think they are? When you say policy lynch, do you mean the policy is to always lynch that particular player or play style?

Unraise

I'm actually glad I was wrong about the raising mechanic. I do want to think about my choice before I make it.

[Drippereth]

FALSE
Assuming a doctor is in the settup, I will be amaza-suprised if the double-voter isn't protected. So raising up whoever you think is the most pro-town is still the way imo.
Enough the whole raising thing though, people who are just talking about it and just ignoring the two scums that have already been flushed out are scummy.

[vezopiraka]

@drippereth: If you once again say that deer is scum I for one will vote for you and either if you or deer flips scum I will held a crusade to lynch the other

[Drippereth]

I'm not sure I have what you're saying right...

If we say that Deer is scum again you'll vote for us.
If Deer flips scum you will want to lynch us.
If we flip scum you want to lynch Deer.

Am I interpreting it right?

[xvart]

I'm not going to agree to a contract I will potentially break (see: bandwagoning), nor am I going to agree to a contract proposed by the only person in the game who is pushing on me. When, and only when, you are dead, I will agree to the contract.

Wait a second... You are not going to agree to the contract because 1) you might break it, and 2) the person who proposed it thinks you are scum? Then you say you will agree to the contract once the person who proposed it is dead? So you obviously think there is some benefit to the contract, but only after the person who proposed it is dead? I don't understand. Once CMAR is dead, will you not break it even though you suggested you might? This is convoluted fence sitting at it's finest. It appears to me that you think that opposing the contract will make you scummy, but you don't want to support the person who proposed it even though you will agree to it. What in the contract makes it more valuable or more pro-town once CMAR is dead?

IIoA is a nulltell, too, along with contradictions.

Contradictions do not give any information about alignment? Town is just as likely to contradict themselves as scum?

But not everyone is raising themselves... And, I don't see anyone that is raising himself/herself to try and say others are scum. They may be doing it to say "I'm not scum" but not the other way around.

Sigh. I'm not saying everyone is doing it. Try reading my post again assuming I'm not saying that. Also, try reading post 23, which FoS's everyone not raising themselves. Reading comprehension ftw.

unvote vote: xvart

Because of this and the fact that he's already bandwagon voting.

Interesting vote, and especially weak. In addition to early bandwagoning being scummy in your eyes do you think I was misrepresenting you or something? See comment right below for more info on my original comment.

Everybody raising themselves is stupid for trying to say others are scum. Not everyone can raise themselves, or nobody will get the double vote.

But not everyone is raising themselves... And, I don't see anyone that is raising himself/herself to try and say others are scum. They may be doing it to say "I'm not scum" but not the other way around.

Yeah, I totally FoSed people for it. So, does that change things?

I was more concerned with the idea that was presented that people were only raising themselves to make others look scummy, which seems more like a semantic problem in the original quote.

@Xvart, animorph - Why posting and not raising?

I didn't feel the need to immediately vote to raise someone, and frankly I didn't really feel comfortable haphazardly raising someone on the third page with so little to judge genuine townie-ness on. I also wasn't expecting to get a couple of votes (if any) to raise me so I didn't see the necessity at the time. At the time of the post, raising myself seemed equivalent to not raising anyone.

Raise: xvart

So we can self-raise, right? In that case...

Unraise: MagnaofIllusion

Raise: Super Smash Bros. Fan

The question about self-raising here reads to me to be not genuine. By this time it was obvious that self-raising was allowed, so why the need to confirm question it and then self raise yourself? Are you scum that needs to reaffirm that it is okay to self-raise yourself? The same goes for IDI.

I see some stuff stays consistent between player sets.

Ok, I'm obviously a mafia because of my stance on randomly voting people. Kill me.

/sarcasm.

Um... wtf?

On another front, I have no clue what the hell animorph is doing and am anxious for some coherent posting as opposed to quoting himself to the attention of the mod.

The case on Richard and the subsequent wagon is much more solid.

Unvote
Vote: Richard

I think there was something else I wanted to comment on (probably in one of the quotes above that I deleted) but can't remember now, so I'll try and get back to that later.

preview edit:

I still suggest raising the one we are lynching

Then what is the point of going through the raise motions if that person is going to instantly die?

@drippereth: If you once again say that deer is scum I for one will vote for you and either if you or deer flips scum I will held a crusade to lynch the other

Hmmmm...

xvart.

[vezopiraka]

Yes. Why are you talking at plural?

[xvart]

Yes. Why are you talking at plural?

Drippereth is a hydra (multiple heads) account for two players: DrippingGoofBall and Ellibereth. They both play under that account in this game with the same role and same win condition.

xvart.

[vezopiraka]

Ah. Ok.
Please use only this account and try to remember to log off from your main account

[RichardGHP]

IIoA is a nulltell, too, along with contradictions.

Contradictions do not give any information about alignment? Town is just as likely to contradict themselves as scum?

No to first, yes to second.

I'm going to lol when Drippereth is wrong - AGAIN

[RichardGHP]

EBWOP to fix quote tags:

IIoA is a nulltell, too, along with contradictions.

Contradictions do not give any information about alignment? Town is just as likely to contradict themselves as scum?

No to first, yes to second.

I'm going to lol when Drippereth is wrong - AGAIN

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

I'm still trying to figure out the impact of the raising a hand mechanic on the game. If we always vote for who we think is most town, we make NKs much easier for the scum. On the other hand, we certainly don't want scum double voters. I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better off casting our raise votes with a random number generator or abstaining from raising a hand at all. I really like the idea from a fluff perspective. Those who are raised to Hand probably won't last very long, which is very fitting.

I see your point there, but this is why Doctor is a role. The Doctor can protect the person with the double vote.

@everyone: I think that for the first day or in some cases if we don't want to raise a hand we can raise the one who will be lynched so nobody could die because of it.

How does this benefit us? If we raise a hand to the person that we think is the most likely scum, then that means we're putting a greater risk of scum having it then we're already in. Also, having a No Lynch Day 1 gives us very little information for us to go on.

@Percy: I'm pretty sure the mod said that if the Hand dies we'll have to raise a new one. It fits with the flavor, which is why I said I liked it from a fluff perspective. That is what I meant by "always".

You're skimming. Look at what MacavityLock quoted. That's why we have to be extremely careful with who we raise once we start to make informative decisions.

RichardGHP = definite scum for downplaying the Drippereth hydra's legendary, awesome scumhunting (we get ourselves NK'd pretty early). You are safe to assume that we are comprised of Ellibereth & DrippingGoofball mind meld. So really. The scum doesn't have a prayer.

Okay, this should be interesting. So DrippingGoofball and Ellibereth are hydra's? We might as well expect haliarity and game play we wouldn't really expect.

The question about self-raising here reads to me to be not genuine. By this time it was obvious that self-raising was allowed, so why the need to confirm question it and then self raise yourself? Are you scum that needs to reaffirm that it is okay to self-raise yourself?

I was kind of wondering why the mod would let us raise ourself. To be honest, I was kind of surprised that he would do that. However, just in case he wasn't lying and that I didn't have any reads at the time.

Now you could say that I contradicted myself as it was part of my big post, but when making decent-sized post, I tend to go on chronlogical order and I don't see these comments until I scroll through them. When I find something that worth responding too, I make a response to them. Basically, you can tell that at the beginning of my post that I had no reads. They slowly developed into get a slightly scummy read on DrModem.

[Benmage]

That thing is not useful. So we have to pick a double voter? on day 1.
If we target scum we have a double voter scum.
If we raise town we have a double voter dead.
If we raise town scum may create WIFOM and make us lynch him.

All cases equal bad for town. I still suggest raising the one we are lynching

Uhh this just doesn't read logically.... there can be a multitude of things to keep someone from dying, or to dissuade Nk's.

I'm thinking....we don't need to raise a hand on D1 do we?

[Benmage]

I hate the idea that you would lynch a certain player just because you dislike their play style.

A policy lynch could also be for a consistent VI...someone who is always a hindrance to the town regardless of alignment, take zewt, or zazier for example.

It might be their "play-style" but if it blows, they hang.

Enough the whole raising thing though, people who are just talking about it and just ignoring the two scums that have already been flushed out are scummy.

Would you be so kind as to rephrase, or highlight, or by any means you want to the case on said "two scum".

[LimMePls]

[sarcasm] Thanks for answering my questions Richard [/sarcasm]