Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mail-mi]

Also, Mail-mi's disagreement with the plan is agreeing with a worst-case that I already pointed out is impossible if play this smart.

Did you not read my posts on that, Mail-mi?

(Also, I'm increasingly getting the feeling that there is a subset of players who just ignore my posts.  Ashersky, and the great writer François-Marie Arouet read me, but other people seem to gloss right over.)

I did, and i say that if we have a 4th claimant (if we even have 3 claimants) then we do leave it alone. I don't care much if we claim, but considering that there are others that won't, I won't unless everyone agrees.

Fair enough.

So, why'd you post that that was one of the reasons you disliked the plan, AFTER I had refuted it, and never follow up with your thoughts on my point until I pressed you on it?

Because instead of having 3 ICs, we would have 4 people with (almost) exactly 1/4 chance of being scum, which is as if we hadn't done the plan at all, and just given scum targets for the NKs.

[Jorbles]

I'm torn, there's really a strong argument in both directions for and against PRs claiming.

On the for side:
-We get 3 ICs probably. (they shouldn't claim their role)
-They actually get to claim.
On the against side:
-They all die very quickly.
-All their powers get stronger the later into the game it gets.
-We're reducing them to 1-shots basically because they're probably not getting more than 1-shot off before they die.

I guess I'd go along with it if everyone was willing to, but having less than all of them claim seems bad. Having 2 claim means there's a good chance neither lives to do anything useful. Their powers do get a lot more useful the later into the game it gets.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Also, Mail-mi's disagreement with the plan is agreeing with a worst-case that I already pointed out is impossible if play this smart.

Did you not read my posts on that, Mail-mi?

(Also, I'm increasingly getting the feeling that there is a subset of players who just ignore my posts.  Ashersky, and the great writer François-Marie Arouet read me, but other people seem to gloss right over.)

I did, and i say that if we have a 4th claimant (if we even have 3 claimants) then we do leave it alone. I don't care much if we claim, but considering that there are others that won't, I won't unless everyone agrees.

Fair enough.

So, why'd you post that that was one of the reasons you disliked the plan, AFTER I had refuted it, and never follow up with your thoughts on my point until I pressed you on it?

Because instead of having 3 ICs, we would have 4 people with (almost) exactly 1/4 chance of being scum, which is as if we hadn't done the plan at all, and just given scum targets for the NKs.

But if scum claims, they almost guarantee the other scum faction kills them, that's my whole point.  So why would they claim?  And even if they do, we scumhunt among the others, and let the two scum teams take care of whomever fakeclaimed.

And again, you seemed to be accepting that worst-case scenario when you quoted it, not expanding on it or having this other (fair) point.

[Jorbles]

Side note, if anyone claims Vig in the later stages of the game we should definitely lynch them because not only is there a good chance it's a lie, but we'd also discover the alignment of anyone they killed giving us a trove of useful info.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Side note, if anyone claims Vig in the later stages of the game we should definitely lynch them because not only is there a good chance it's a lie, but we'd also discover the alignment of anyone they killed giving us a trove of useful info.

100% agree with this.

Also worth noting: we can basically assume 2 kills per night in the absence of any claims (until we get closer to the end).  Odds of them hitting the same person are bad.  If we have any kind of claiming, we add a lot of wifom that makes them more likely to hit the same person, (so there is only 1 night kill) or the possibility if both SK and Mafia want to avoid that, of them accidentally letting someone live an extra night.

[Jorbles]

If scum (presumably a Dalek) claims they are guaranteeing that the other scum faction will kill them...but not immediately. There's a 2/3 chance they'd make it through the first night and at that point a claim of Vig or Cop could help them gambit and setup their team mate for the rest of the game.

@UoS: I read all your posts even if I don't always have anything to say about them.

[yuma]

What the heck umbrage??? I have read the threadd AND the setup, which is saying something since I'm V/LA with occasional phone access only. I am fully aware of the no flip on NKs. D1 though, we can absolutely trust L-1 claimants if there is no counterclaim. guess what day we're on? D1.

vote: liopoil for overreacting to one vote.

vote: voltaire for voting someone for reacting to a vote. I don't think he overreacted at all. I think he reacted. And I wonder if this is your way of jumping starting a nice little wagon early.

[yuma]

There have been lots of weird posts in this game. Like these:

I'm reading it, but don't expect any contributions from me.

I really do not like this attitude. Scumhunt!

I think we need to work extra hard to create interactions and stuff so we get away of theory talk.

And then nothing. Scumhunt!

PPE: Posts.

and both of these posts from voltaire strike me:

the first is a blatant misrepresentation of what nkirbit said... here is the full quote and was only the 45th post of the entire game.

I'm here.  I'm going to pass on the theory talk, though.  I'm just tired of it at this point, haha.

I'm reading it, but don't expect any contributions from me.

he is reading the theory... and won't be contributing to theory. He says nothing about not scum hunting, nor has there been time to scum hunt just 45 posts into the game.

And then for Eevee: the post that volt quotes eevee is scumhunting! he voted for me! and it is his last post and hasn't posted elsewhere on the forums since. What do you want from him, to be glued to the computer anxiously awaiting every new post come in and have him comment on it?

I think voltaire is grasping for fake reads in an attempt to look like he is scumhunting and trying to get potential wagons started. I am going to continue to vote him.

[mail-mi]

There have been lots of weird posts in this game. Like these:

I'm reading it, but don't expect any contributions from me.

I really do not like this attitude. Scumhunt!

I think we need to work extra hard to create interactions and stuff so we get away of theory talk.

And then nothing. Scumhunt!

PPE: Posts.

and both of these posts from voltaire strike me:

the first is a blatant misrepresentation of what nkirbit said... here is the full quote and was only the 45th post of the entire game.

I'm here.  I'm going to pass on the theory talk, though.  I'm just tired of it at this point, haha.

I'm reading it, but don't expect any contributions from me.

he is reading the theory... and won't be contributing to theory. He says nothing about not scum hunting, nor has there been time to scum hunt just 45 posts into the game.

And then for Eevee: the post that volt quotes eevee is scumhunting! he voted for me! and it is his last post and hasn't posted elsewhere on the forums since. What do you want from him, to be glued to the computer anxiously awaiting every new post come in and have him comment on it?

I think voltaire is grasping for fake reads in an attempt to look like he is scumhunting and trying to get potential wagons started. I am going to continue to vote him.

I like your way of thinking, and i think im gonna sheep this. vote: voltaire

[Jorbles]

I don't really have strong enough reads to vote for anyone at this point so I'm going to vote for... Robz.

Vote: Robz

Happy Birthday Robz! You look the same as the day I met you! (You still look like the spitting image of Link)

[yuma]

[mail-mi]

Hey, it's a good early D1 case. r u mad for calling your case good, brah?

[yuma]

No. I just like sheep. Bah!

[nkirbit]

Well, I did kind of say that I wouldn't talk about theory and then talked about theory.  My posts were immediately after reading what Ash and UoS had been saying, and were just my quick thoughts about their posts.  I do want to have input, but I'm just giving a heads up that I'm not going to sit here and really work through the game and help them come up with plans.. I have done so in the past, and am simply choosing not to this game because:

1) I think it clogs up the thread.
2) Ash, UoS, and others will do it anyway
3) I don't want to.

But I'm reading and will comment on what they're saying.

[Voltgloss]

Unvote

Reasonable response.

Those who have played with mail-mi, question:  his behavior so far here - how does it compare to previous games?

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Actually, if the thread is already becoming clogged, I say we table any claiming-talk for now and come back to it when we're 3 or so days from the deadline, enough time to claim if we're going to, enough time to decide not to  without torpedoing all the cases that will be building by day's end.

Sound good to everyone?  If so, I'm done with theory talk for now.

[Jorbles]

Actually, if the thread is already becoming clogged, I say we table any claiming-talk for now and come back to it when we're 3 or so days from the deadline, enough time to claim if we're going to, enough time to decide not to  without torpedoing all the cases that will be building by day's end.

Sound good to everyone?  If so, I'm done with theory talk for now.

I think that's a very reasonable plan. Let's talk about mail-mi.

Mail-mi is usually sheepy no? I remember that being the case in the early games anyways, but then I took a break from playing and mail-mi's meta may have changed when I wasn't paying attention. So mail-mi sheeping = null read for me.

[nkirbit]

Unvote

Reasonable response.

Those who have played with mail-mi, question:  his behavior so far here - how does it compare to previous games?

Par for the course, pretty much.  He's always sheepy.

[UmbrageOfSnow]

I've only played with him in ongoing games, so no comment.

[yuma]

Unvote

Reasonable response.

Those who have played with mail-mi, question:  his behavior so far here - how does it compare to previous games?

I would say the two times he was mafia he made more of an effort to pursue original thought and sheeped less.

To be honest I really don't mind if he sheeps or not. He knows enough about this game to know that we will hold players accountable for their sheeps just as much as someone who created an original case.

[Voltaire]

Sound good to everyone?  If so, I'm done with theory talk for now.

Sure. I support it.

Par for the course, pretty much.  He's always sheepy.

This. It's aggravating but it's a null.

vote: voltaire for voting someone for reacting to a vote. I don't think he overreacted at all. I think he reacted. And I wonder if this is your way of jumping starting a nice little wagon early.

vote: yuma for voting for someone for voting someone for reacting to a vote. unvote

Seriously though, it's the tone of lio's response that got me. There are ongoing games involved, but I'm totally comfortable for my vote: liopoil at this point on D1.

And as far as this is concerned...

the first is a blatant misrepresentation of what nkirbit said... here is the full quote and was only the 45th post of the entire game.

I'm here.  I'm going to pass on the theory talk, though.  I'm just tired of it at this point, haha.

I'm reading it, but don't expect any contributions from me.

he is reading the theory... and won't be contributing to theory. He says nothing about not scum hunting, nor has there been time to scum hunt just 45 posts into the game.

And then for Eevee: the post that volt quotes eevee is scumhunting! he voted for me! and it is his last post and hasn't posted elsewhere on the forums since. What do you want from him, to be glued to the computer anxiously awaiting every new post come in and have him comment on it?

I think voltaire is grasping for fake reads in an attempt to look like he is scumhunting and trying to get potential wagons started. I am going to continue to vote him.

...the fact that nkirbit isn't contributing to scumhunting is the entire point, whether or not he's talking about it. Again, and I've said this before, we can talk theory and scumhunt at the same time. I think both are good. So nkirbit saying "I won't do Thing 1" and then also not doing Thing 2 is going to get called out by me. It's not scummy, but it's not helping town.

[yuma]

...the fact that nkirbit isn't contributing to scumhunting is the entire point, whether or not he's talking about it. Again, and I've said this before, we can talk theory and scumhunt at the same time. I think both are good. So nkirbit saying "I won't do Thing 1" and then also not doing Thing 2 is going to get called out by me. It's not scummy, but it's not helping town.

I don't see what your point here is? Nkirbit never said he wasn't going to scumhunt. And I agree we can talk theory and scum hunt at the same time to an extent... but what does that have to do with this conversation?

[Voltaire]

...the fact that nkirbit isn't contributing to scumhunting is the entire point, whether or not he's talking about it. Again, and I've said this before, we can talk theory and scumhunt at the same time. I think both are good. So nkirbit saying "I won't do Thing 1" and then also not doing Thing 2 is going to get called out by me. It's not scummy, but it's not helping town.

I don't see what your point here is? Nkirbit never said he wasn't going to scumhunt. And I agree we can talk theory and scum hunt at the same time to an extent... but what does that have to do with this conversation?

Yeah, but then his only contributions were theory (and helpful). So I was encouraging him and Eevee to start scumhunting. Maybe I've misunderstood you?

[yuma]

I mean... after he posted the post that you originally quoted he had 3 posts in the course of ~ 2 hours. In that course of time no one else had scum hunted. He then left for the night. During that time you made your post about him not scum hunting. Why wasn't he scum hunting? Probably because he wasn't online...

You then make your post about him and I call him out on it. Nowhere does he say he won't scum hunt. He only says that he doesn't want to talk theory, but ends up doing so. I understand that... I have been there before, because when you see town doing something that you disagree with it is hard to not say anything...

So I guess I just don't see how you can call him out for not scum hunting based off the context of that post.

[yuma]

...the fact that nkirbit isn't contributing to scumhunting is the entire point, whether or not he's talking about it. Again, and I've said this before, we can talk theory and scumhunt at the same time. I think both are good. So nkirbit saying "I won't do Thing 1" and then also not doing Thing 2 is going to get called out by me. It's not scummy, but it's not helping town.

I don't see what your point here is? Nkirbit never said he wasn't going to scumhunt. And I agree we can talk theory and scum hunt at the same time to an extent... but what does that have to do with this conversation?

Yeah, but then his only contributions were theory (and helpful). So I was encouraging him and Eevee to start scumhunting. Maybe I've misunderstood you?

I think my main point is that you called out two people for not scum hunting when they weren't online to scum hunt. You called it weird. To me weird in this game = scummy. I don't see how anyone can be scummy for going to bed or otherwise being busy and not posting and not scum hunting when they aren't online...

And I think you likely didn't check whether or not they had posted and were just trying to drum up some suspicion on players who 1. yes haven't scum hunted because 2. they haven't been online much to do so. Combine that with your case vote on lio and I find it suspicious.