Print

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

[Grujah]

but a better scum when allowed to stay behind the scenes.

What's this based on?
Morg's RMMM2?

[Grujah]

The only two games where I was not town were that one and Murder Mansion where I was "traitorish" but I think in Murder Mansion I was one of the most active ones.

[Voltaire]

The only two games where I was not town were that one and Murder Mansion where I was "traitorish" but I think in Murder Mansion I was one of the most active ones.

I take it you don't agree with a lynch-lurkers policy?

[Galzria]

but a better scum when allowed to stay behind the scenes.

What's this based on?
Morg's RMMM2?

Umm... Me derping at 6:00 am with no coffee?

But I bet it's true!

[Grujah]

The only two games where I was not town were that one and Murder Mansion where I was "traitorish" but I think in Murder Mansion I was one of the most active ones.

I take it you don't agree with a lynch-lurkers policy?

I do agree with lurker lynch as a policy as a last resort, as it is generally better than no lynch (no-lynches in MVIII for example screwed town). Lurker lynch kills either a .. "sheep" townie which can be a liability for town, or a lurking scum. Both lurker town and lurker scum are awful strategies, and I don't think that scum is more likely to lurk (on more depends on players, actually) but if no viable lynch is found, I think that here possible benefits outweight the negative side.


One thing, also. Murder Mansion was specific for me, though. I had until day 2 to switch to a team of my choice (I didn't know how many and which teams there are, but only mafia or town was viable, though). So, I could afford to scumhunt and if we actually did hit scum, I'd choose town. But I could get on scum side, if I see that town is going bad. So, not our typical scum.

In RMMM2 I think I wasn't lurking, I was there, I was just staying at side and .. poking? Something like that.

[yuma]

I'm not sure I quite get the soft-deadline suggestion. Are we trying to actually lynch someone by then or not? If not, then I think people will be unable to really pretend as though it's a real deadline and act the same way.

It reminds me of when you try to play poker with jellybeans instead of money. You can pretend it's the same game, but the stakes just aren't the same, and it's the stakes that really matter.

I might really be missing something though. Can you explain a bit more, yuma?

Think of it as playing with jellybeans, but who ever has the least amount of jellybeans at the end of the game has to pay $100. So the stakes aren't the same, but they are still high.

The reason I suggested it, is because often soft deadlines are ignored. But if the majority of us treat it as a hard deadline and then treat the remaining time as the next day we can look back at that vote count and the "previous day's" posts, analyze them and then potentially form new wagons on people who helped cause a no lynch. I think a minimum of participation before the soft lynch is either a vote, preferably on one of 2 major wagons, or a solid explanation as to why neither wagon works (but again, often a solid explanation isn't feasible Day 1, so this is often a bad townie excuse or a scummy excuse). I think we should install the soft deadline if we have at least half the town agreeing to it. I haven't counted but I would guess about 10 people have suggested it would be an ok idea.

[TheMunch]

Which reasons from other people do you agree with that you think ehunt is suspicious?  I don't think it's been very well fleshed out at all.

ehunt is currently discussing a bunch of the talking points so I'll give a response if necessary after all that has been said.

Can you explain why you need ehunt to say something before you can tell us the reasons you vote him for? You did already vote him, so the reasons should be there already.

Can you finally answer this, TheMunch?

Since you aren't that clear with what "this" means, I can take it to mean one of two things.  First, you might want a response to what eHalc said, regarding not thinking it was very fleshed out.  Well all I can say is I have never tried to be decieving when it comes to reasons why I vote for people.  You can see this if you go back and reread but it seems like you haven't.  In fact I said it in 325.  But as to the arguments I was agreeing to, those were voltgloss in 362, Eevee in 391, and voltgloss again in 420.  I found myself agreeing with these for the most part but it was during the Shraeye wagon kerfuffle so it could be hard to miss.
Now the second thing you might be asking me to answer is I why I had to wait.  To me, I had noticed these posts listed above (the ones I claim as the reasons why ehunt was scummy), and had already stated my reasons for voting him in the first place.  Unlike jotheonah, I wasn't going to clutter up ehunts ramblings (which he prob could have put all in one post).

[Voltaire]

I think we should install the soft deadline if we have at least half the town agreeing to it. I haven't counted but I would guess about 10 people have suggested it would be an ok idea.

Then I should clarify that although I think it is unlikely to work, I am fine trying it.

I do agree with lurker lynch as a policy as a last resort, as it is generally better than no lynch (no-lynches in MVIII for example screwed town). Lurker lynch kills either a .. "sheep" townie which can be a liability for town, or a lurking scum. Both lurker town and lurker scum are awful strategies, and I don't think that scum is more likely to lurk (on more depends on players, actually) but if no viable lynch is found, I think that here possible benefits outweight the negative side.

I disagree that scum and town are equally likely to lurk, if that's what you're saying, but I appreciate the reply.

ibgtennis and Captain_Frisk, who are your lynch candidates? Why?

[TheMunch]

[...]
This isn't what I am trying to accomplish.  I dont think we both mean the same thing when I say wagon, so let me be perfectly clear.  By wagon, I mean to say a group of people that voted for a particular person for some shared reason or over a shared period of time.  We have already had these wagons.  I am not attempting to make ANOTHER yuma wagon, or an ehunt wagon, or an O wagon.  What i'm trying to do is find out if we kill ehunt, or yuma, or O, which one of the wagons that has ALREADY HAPPENED will provide the most information if its target is dead.  Lets say we decide to kill yuma because it would provide the most valuable information; then I'm not nearly as concerned with the people that helped vote to kill (for the sake of flipping his card) as the people on the earlier wagons.  It is impossible to find scum day 1.  I want to make day 2 as informed as possible and "trying to figure out the most informative lynch" is precisely the way to do it.  In fact, it bothers me that you are so against the idea of trying to gain as much information as possible.  Kinda scummy to me.  Vote: eHalcyon

What do you mean by "for the sake of flipping his card"? That's not the information we're aiming for in a lynch.

If you had been keeping up with the argument, that is the whole point.  The argument is once someone is dead, and they have flipped their card (probably the most important part), then we can re-examine the wagons and see what can be deduced.  We can only deduce things if the person whose card was flipped had people against him that we can examine (I address what I think we are looking for in my post 874)

Another point on wagon hunting, I propose the following reasoning.  Lets say we kill a wagon and that person flips either town or scum.  Obviously there are more intricacies with the players power role, but lets keep it simple.  So if they flip town, we'd want to re-examine the wagon and look at the people who jumped on very quickly after the wagon formed.  If they flip scum, we would be looking for at (fixed for clarity) people that defended him. 

Open question: what wagons do people feel have both elements to them (people who jumped on quickly after the wagon formed, and a strong defense for them by a small number of people) so that regardless of whether or not they flip town, we can deduce good information?

[Grujah]

I think we should install the soft deadline if we have at least half the town agreeing to it. I haven't counted but I would guess about 10 people have suggested it would be an ok idea.

Then I should clarify that although I think it is unlikely to work, I am fine trying it.

I do agree with lurker lynch as a policy as a last resort, as it is generally better than no lynch (no-lynches in MVIII for example screwed town). Lurker lynch kills either a .. "sheep" townie which can be a liability for town, or a lurking scum. Both lurker town and lurker scum are awful strategies, and I don't think that scum is more likely to lurk (on more depends on players, actually) but if no viable lynch is found, I think that here possible benefits outweight the negative side.

I disagree that scum and town are equally likely to lurk, if that's what you're saying, but I appreciate the reply.

ibgtennis and Captain_Frisk, who are your lynch candidates? Why?

I said that on f.ds I didn't notice that scum is more likely to do so. We had similar amount of both (somebody correct em if I am wrong).

[Watno]

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

Also, why do you think someone's card is the most important information we'll get when he dies. In fact, we don't even know we'll get it. Anyway, i'd say the most important piece of information revealed on death will be the alignment of the player who died.

[Galzria]

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

Also, why do you think someone's card is the most important information we'll get when he dies. In fact, we don't even know we'll get it. Anyway, i'd say the most important piece of information revealed on death will be the alignment of the player who died.

I believe you two are talking past each other. I believe Munch was referring to their Alignment when he said "card".

[TheMunch]

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

At the time I probably thought the reasons were more fleshed out (oh look I even said that I did).  And would be waiting to respond to those reasons, which I probably felt I was being called out for at the time.  I have now been explicit so there is no confusion.

Also, why do you think someone's card is the most important information we'll get when he dies. In fact, we don't even know we'll get it. Anyway, i'd say the most important piece of information revealed on death will be the alignment of the player who died.

I didn't know that the cards would be flipped.  This is just what everyone is saying so I assumed thats the way it worked on this forum.  And when i talked about card flip, I was talking about player alignment.  I had forgotten we had also gotten cards (well I hadn't but had not realized this would cause confusion) from dominion.  It was a simple mistake; I've only ever played mafia IRL where your alignment is the card you got in some form (diamonds are mafia or something along those lines).

PPE: Galz is right.

[Watno]

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

At the time I probably thought the reasons were more fleshed out (oh look I even said that I did).  And would be waiting to respond to those reasons, which I probably felt I was being called out for at the time.  I have now been explicit so there is no confusion.

So, you voted someone for reasons you thought were fleshed out, but didn't check what those reasons were?

[TheMunch]

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

At the time I probably thought the reasons were more fleshed out (oh look I even said that I did).  And would be waiting to respond to those reasons, which I probably felt I was being called out for at the time.  I have now been explicit so there is no confusion.

So, you voted someone for reasons you thought were fleshed out, but didn't check what those reasons were?

Other way around.  I voted for reasons, and agreed with what was brought up.  Fleshed out, to me, implies known to the group.  I think the misunderstanding is that in my naivete I assumed other people notice exactly the same things I do and see them in the same light I do.  This became very evident after my reread when I realize that these points were brought up during the Shraeye wagon.  People were probably more focused on that, didn't notice the posts I referenced, and then when I said "oh yeah this is fleshed out" people like you understandably go "wat" if they hadn't caught those same posts or agreed with them on the first time through.  I knew what the reasons were, but I mistakenly thought others did too.

[Watno]

But eHalc explicitely asked you what you thought were the fleshed out reasons?

[TheMunch]

But eHalc explicitely asked you what you thought were the fleshed out reasons?

Thats why I linked the relevent articles which I assumed were fleshed out.

[TheMunch]

But eHalc explicitely asked you what you thought were the fleshed out reasons?

Thats why I linked the relevent articles posts (fixed for clarity) which I assumed were fleshed out.

[Watno]

You didn't until way later. What you posted was:

Which reasons from other people do you agree with that you think ehunt is suspicious?  I don't think it's been very well fleshed out at all.

ehunt is currently discussing a bunch of the talking points so I'll give a response if necessary after all that has been said.

[TheMunch]

You didn't until way later. What you posted was:

Which reasons from other people do you agree with that you think ehunt is suspicious?  I don't think it's been very well fleshed out at all.

ehunt is currently discussing a bunch of the talking points so I'll give a response if necessary after all that has been said.

I have already responded to that.  I consider this matter closed.

[Watno]

Yes, you answered that, but the answer didn't explain anything. I followed up with

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

to which you answered

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

At the time I probably thought the reasons were more fleshed out (oh look I even said that I did).  And would be waiting to respond to those reasons, which I probably felt I was being called out for at the time.  I have now been explicit so there is no confusion.

which doesn't make any sense. Why didn't you explicitely say what you thought were the reasons against ehunt right when asked for the first time?

[Voltaire]

Watno, I don't see anything confusing about what TheMunch has said. What are you hoping to gain from this?

[ibgtennis]

Work has been a bit crazy, but I just caught up the past day or so. I will be V/LA this weekend, but I will definitely get a post in today before I ship off and def a post sunday night...saturday might be unrealistic

A few notes:

-reading from pages, 33-40, I'd like to say that I'm super happy that the doom and gloom tone that took over has dissipated. This is my first time, and I want this to be fun.

-In speaking of fun, I want to say that, Munch, I totally agree about previous games. I also acknowledge their importance to this game, and how they invariably play a role, but this game is crazy enough...I don't have the time or interest to read through previous games (taking notes here is hard enough, as is). In the end, i also think people overvalue previous games' importance. My guess is that everybody here is pretty smart and conscious of not wanting to conform to previous playing styles. So yeah, we shouldn't end talk of previous games, but let's make sure it's related and clear for those who might not understand as well

-Welcome to the game Young Nick

-Personally, I have a town read on Munch. I don't buy the fact that his explanations of previous wagons were roundabout, hedgy, and manipulative. they read as genuine and town-like to me. I think he is really just trying to analyze what's gone on and jumpstart the group, and for that I have respect. When I come back later tonight to answer Voltaire's question about who I vote to lynch, I think his analysis will be useful. Plus, I got love for a fellow newb.

[Eevee]

I personally find TheMunch quite confusing, possibly even to the point of scumminess. However, forcing him to argue semantics and explain every single wording he has used doesn't really seem fair either. Still, keeping an eye on you Munch!

[Watno]

I'm not forcing TheMunch to argue semantics.

This was TheMunch's original post i didn't understand:

Which reasons from other people do you agree with that you think ehunt is suspicious?  I don't think it's been very well fleshed out at all.

ehunt is currently discussing a bunch of the talking points so I'll give a response if necessary after all that has been said.

I asked:

Can you explain why you need ehunt to say something before you can tell us the reasons you vote him for? You did already vote him, so the reasons should be there already.

His answer, which I dont think answers the question:

Now the second thing you might be asking me to answer is I why I had to wait.  To me, I had noticed these posts listed above (the ones I claim as the reasons why ehunt was scummy), and had already stated my reasons for voting him in the first place.  Unlike jotheonah, I wasn't going to clutter up ehunts ramblings (which he prob could have put all in one post).

So i followed up with:

TheMunch, how does saying "This are the reasons: List" provide more clutter than "I can't say my reasons now because ehunt is talking about them"?

His answer to that, which is pretty much the same as what caused eHalc's question and my original one

At the time I probably thought the reasons were more fleshed out (oh look I even said that I did).  And would be waiting to respond to those reasons, which I probably felt I was being called out for at the time.  I have now been explicit so there is no confusion.

So, feel free to explain to me how that makes sense and where he answers why he couldn't state his reasons right when he was asked, but had to wait for ehunt to talk about them.