Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

Liar liar pants on fire. That's a ridiculous explanation.

What is your take on it, Sire snark?

It looked like a stupid mistake. So I think claiming otherwise is ridiculous.

I also fail to see the value in what you're trying to measure if you actually were doing a reaction test. Everything I've seen so far is exactly what I would have expected.

This is a pretty simple game, really. Every action is visible and every motive can be shown by those actions. Why do you think the low chance of success is present when the # of people are roughly equally divided into two factions, and nobody knows anybody elses' role?

Does it matter if I think randomly killing is a poor strategy?

Without going through all possibilities, I'm going to throw out that the chance of winning by randomly killing is 50%. It's probably higher since I'm excluding the possibility of Prince being a target of random attack. So we're left with >50%.

Those are better than I thought they would be. But I still don't want to kill randomly. I wouldn't trust that the targets are actually random (unless given by IronyOwl), and I don't trust that the traitors would continue playing randomly if the odds tipped in their favor.

Anyway, seeing as the game is roughly divided into two equal portions of 'town' and 'scum', which are Loyalists and Traitors [Minus third-party Heir, if any], if you were a traitor: How would you approach the situation if another person attacked the Prince and others defended him [Prince] in his stead while counterattacking the attacker? What would your opinion be on the Prince's aggressor, and on those who chose to retaliate? Assuming normal roles and 8 people.

It depends on how many traitors are left in the game. If there is still a considerable complement of loyalists, e.g. the traitors only outnumber the loyalists by one, then I might consider joining in if I had a useful attack role. Otherwise, I'd cut my losses and try again at some later point. If the traitors outnumbered the loyalists by two, then I'd join in and try to get him killed.

If the loyalists outnumber the traitor, then I don't know what the hell that dumbass is doing. I'd probably cut my losses and attack him, and hope he was a Crossbowman or some other role that justified the straight-out attack.

[Dariush]

Caz

Tiruin: It's been stated that defending is reactionary. Are you pre-emptively defending the prince in an attempt to make you look better?

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

This is utter bullshit. Which reaction did you expect, other than the inevitable accusation of trying to look towny and a question about you not reading the rules?

I''ll attack Deathsword here though, he looks pretty panicky.

And being 'pretty panicky' (without even mentioning why) is sufficient to justify what is effectively an unchangeable vote on him how?

Dariush, is this game better suited to more or less deliberate play? I.E., should we spend a lot of time trying to figure out who's a traitor or not, or should we pay close attention to our gut feelings and attack and defend whenever we get a strong one?

I'd say the second. Without roleflips telling us anything and no 'hidden' actions, there is no way to figure out scum through pure logic and deduction.

[Leafsnail]

Firstly: it occurs to me that I've been thinking about this game in the wrong terms.  Previously I'd been thinking there was some kind of rush to get our actions in before the deadline on Thursday - now it occurs to me that, since there is no scumkill, we can actually safely let the turn time out as many times as we like.

Defend Self

Toony: Care to elaborate on why I am "panicky", what caused you to reach that conclusion?

I don't like this reaction.  It's like you're deliberately trying to act calm in order to try and counter the accusation of panickiness.  How can you react so aggressively to a poke but then act like nothing's wrong when you're actually attacked?

[Dariush]

It's like you're deliberately trying to act calm in order to try and counter the accusation of panickiness.

...how does this even work. That's like accusing someone of speaking French and then saying that they are intentionally speaking English to counter that accusation.

[Caz]

Caz, how do you find other traitors if you're a traitor? How do you work with them?

I would look for scum tells and probably agree more with their reasoning to help get a loyalist killed. I think once we have our first death it will be easier to see who is who from their reactions to it though.

Caz:  How do you interpret someone who passes their turn very early on?

I would think they are being lazy and also scummy. You're gauged as scum or town by your actions and posts. Giving us an incomplete picture of that seems like it is designed for people to overlook you. I don't see the point really, when you could always wait to see if you need to throw an extra point of defense on the king. It seems too much like avoiding the problem for your own gain.

Firstly: it occurs to me that I've been thinking about this game in the wrong terms.  Previously I'd been thinking there was some kind of rush to get our actions in before the deadline on Thursday - now it occurs to me that, since there is no scumkill, we can actually safely let the turn time out as many times as we like.

That's true. Though I am worrying about a rush of attacks near the deadline that prevent people from defending themselves.


Dariush: What are you thinking of the posts so far? Do you have any feelings on who might be scum yet?

Toaster: How would you react to someone pushing for an attack against someone who you believe to be town?

[Toaster]

Caz:

Caz, how do you find other traitors if you're a traitor? How do you work with them?

I would look for scum tells and probably agree more with their reasoning to help get a loyalist killed. I think once we have our first death it will be easier to see who is who from their reactions to it though.

What kind of reactions would you be looking for?

Toaster: How would you react to someone pushing for an attack against someone who you believe to be town?

It depends on their case against the person.  If it looked phony and trumped-up, I'd be pushing back hard against them.  If it seemed genuine, I'd probably disagree and say we should attack my top suspect instead.  I'd defend against attacks on that person if I was very sure they were town.


Leafsnail:

Firstly: it occurs to me that I've been thinking about this game in the wrong terms.  Previously I'd been thinking there was some kind of rush to get our actions in before the deadline on Thursday - now it occurs to me that, since there is no scumkill, we can actually safely let the turn time out as many times as we like.

Hm.  What do you think about taking this to the logical extreme and turning it into Kingmaker?  Only attack who Irony attacks, and anyone who goes against is group killed?


Dariush:  What do you think is justifiable reason to attack?

[Teneb]

Jim, Toaster, Tiruin: If I don't defend myself, then I would have to depend on someone else to do so, or I will take damage. I'd rather not rely on the possibility that somone might defend me when I can defend myself.


Leafsnail: I do not believe I was acting calmly or panicky in any of my posts. Instead I simply reacted in the way I usually do. Toony claimed I was panicky and attacked me, yet he failed to say exactly why I was panicky.

Tiruin: The same goes to you. You are claiming I am "jumpy" and "self-counsicous", yet you don't say why. You are tryin to come up with BS to attack me because you are scum and taking out other players is necessary for you to have a shot at the Prince.

[Toaster]

Deathsword:  But why do it right away and not wait until later in the turn?

[Dariush]

Dariush: What are you thinking of the posts so far? Do you have any feelings on who might be scum yet?

All of my readings are much more neutral than they would be in a normal game, because I know that scum don't know each other's identity. Add to that the reality of a brand-new gametype and the answer to the first question becomes 'many words'. As to the second question, I think that the likeliest scum are those people whom I adressed in my last two posts, namely Tiruin, Toonyman and Leafsnail.

Dariush:  What do you think is justifiable reason to attack?

Numerous and serious scumslips in a row. Namely, looking for easy lynches and excessively trying to paint self in a townie light.

[Leafsnail]

...how does this even work. That's like accusing someone of speaking French and then saying that they are intentionally speaking English to counter that accusation.

You ask someone a question.  They respond in French, then after you say they're suspicious they suddenly switch back to perfect English and deny they've ever spoken a word of French.  The aim of this metaphorical game is to find French people.  Are they suspicious?

He responded in a very panicky/passive aggressive way, then after something that may have justified more panic happened he instantly switched to nonchalant.

That's true. Though I am worrying about a rush of attacks near the deadline that prevent people from defending themselves.

Yeah.  I'd strongly suggest that townies not do this - that way the mafia will be discouraged by the prospect of being killed next turn.

Hm.  What do you think about taking this to the logical extreme and turning it into Kingmaker?  Only attack who Irony attacks, and anyone who goes against is group killed?

I would support that idea.  However, the fact that we have no real time pressure and plenty of blocking means that attacks for reactions should be safe to make.


@Deathsword:

Leafsnail: I do not believe I was acting calmly or panicky in any of my posts. Instead I simply reacted in the way I usually do. Toony claimed I was panicky and attacked me, yet he failed to say exactly why I was panicky.

You're really claiming there's no difference in tone between your two reactions?

Did I fail to answer you question? No, I didn't. Did I say anything about my survival? No, I didn't.

So, what the hell are you on about? Are you trying to come up with bullshit to justify an attack on me?

Here you have two defensive questions and two angry rhetorical questions.  The tone of this post is clearly Don't Mess With Me.  That's fine on its own, some people play like that.  But in your very next post you switch to:

Toony: Care to elaborate on why I am "panicky", what caused you to reach that conclusion?

One politely phrased question.  The tone is more Terribly Sorry Old Chap, and I can't see why someone attacking you would cause that switch unless you're scum twisting yourself in knots to avoid the allegation.

[Tiruin]

Deathsword

Tiruin: The same goes to you. You are claiming I am "jumpy" and "self-counsicous", yet you don't say why. You are tryin to come up with BS to attack me because you are scum and taking out other players is necessary for you to have a shot at the Prince.

Self-conscious. You instantly went to Defend yourself at the moment someone signaled an attack on you. It was more of a feeling than a statement, but then this comes up.
Jumpy, that you're acting relatively hostile and painting stuff with the B and the S other than trying to calmly converse - a shift in attitude, so to say. To a more defensive manner.

See:

-snip- I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness. And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you. But here, you don't know who your allies are - town or scum. Can you expound on that best scenario further? I find it hard to see when a player feels confident to attack the prince. Also, why panic about your own survival when attention is equal? The last part of the bolded portion seems like a badly thought diversion attempt. You asked me the best time to attack the prince. I said that it would be if either most players were dead or someone had attacked the Prince. Sure, no one knows their team, but anyone attacking the Prince is scum, and if their attacks helps you kill the Prince yourself, then it is a good thing. Why do you think it's a diversion attempt? Did I fail to answer you question? No, I didn't. Did I say anything about my survival? No, I didn't. So, what the hell are you on about? Are you trying to come up with bullshit to justify an attack on me?

Tell me, does this sound different from anything else you've said? Like the addition of the acronym BS in your last post, or the word 'hell', which has negative connotations attached to it? Or perhaps bullshit, which pertains to the fecal matter of a male bovine?

What I'm on about, is scumhunting.

Can you tell me why being jumpy is BS? Also, how does it relate to a scumtell.


Jim

On 'random' killing, how would you best utilize your only tools [attack/defense - taking the same role said earlier] to find scum? Would you follow the Prince's order and tag along in the hopes they get Loyalists instead, or work on an inference on the number of probable allies you have before striking down your target?


Dariush:

Dariush: What are you thinking of the posts so far? Do you have any feelings on who might be scum yet?

All of my readings are much more neutral than they would be in a normal game, because I know that scum don't know each other's identity. Add to that the reality of a brand-new gametype and the answer to the first question becomes 'many words'. As to the second question, I think that the likeliest scum are those people whom I adressed in my last two posts, namely Tiruin, Toonyman and Leafsnail.

Dariush:  What do you think is justifiable reason to attack?

Numerous and serious scumslips in a row. Namely, looking for easy lynches and excessively trying to paint self in a townie light.

Explain your suspicions and how you came up to them.


PPE: Leafsnail

[ToonyMan]

Defend Self
Toony: Care to elaborate on why I am "panicky", what caused you to reach that conclusion?

Whenever I see constant questions directed back at a player that look even longer than the aggressor's attack I find that scummy really.  You also defended yourself the moment you found out my attack which I would describe as an impatient or even panicky reaction, gathering further evidence.

I''ll attack Deathsword here though, he looks pretty panicky.

So soon? Why?

Because everybody are pansies.  I let discussion flow a bit so I could pick a likely target, you just hadn't made an appearance yet molasses pants.

Toony:  How much of that attack was true suspicion and how much was to break us out of RVS?

I would be lying if I said that was purely to break out of RVS.  I do want the game to "really start" at some point but it's not very productive to just target randomly is it?  I can say my decision was perfectly justified.

I''ll attack Deathsword here though, he looks pretty panicky.

And being 'pretty panicky' (without even mentioning why) is sufficient to justify what is effectively an unchangeable vote on him how?

Because the game would advance?  I think not attacking after a certain period is very scummy, and I explained why I put an attack on Deathsword.  Coward.  Don't expect me to defend you.

Dariush: What are you thinking of the posts so far? Do you have any feelings on who might be scum yet?

All of my readings are much more neutral than they would be in a normal game, because I know that scum don't know each other's identity. Add to that the reality of a brand-new gametype and the answer to the first question becomes 'many words'. As to the second question, I think that the likeliest scum are those people whom I adressed in my last two posts, namely Tiruin, Toonyman and Leafsnail.

Are we scum enough to be attacked yet then?  Or do you need to gather "evidence" by making us answer more stupid questions?

[Dariush]

Explain your suspicions and how you came up to them.

Nice job ignoring my post and my questions to you (#61).

Because the game would advance?  I think not attacking after a certain period is very scummy, and I explained why I put an attack on Deathsword.  Coward.  Don't expect me to defend you.
-snip-
Are we scum enough to be attacked yet then?  Or do you need to gather "evidence" by making us answer more stupid questions?

So, asking you a simple question is enough to trigger a passive-agressive shitstorm. Noted.

[Teneb]

Toaster: I'd rather not rely on the possiblity that someone else might defend me. Thus, I used my defend to protect myself. Another reason for not waiting to use it later is that I may end up forgetting to do so.

Leafsnail: My answer to Tiruin sounded angry because I was angry at his crap (more below), but not at Toonyman. Thus the difference in tone.

Tiruin: First you attempt to defend the Prince (despite IO not being under attack and being called on it by Meph) to look loyal, then when others (Caz and myself) pointed that out, you deflected it by saying it was a "Reaction Test", which I claimed was BS. Then you made up some crap about me mentioning my survival and panicking, to I called you out on. You then proceeded to call me "jumpy" to once more deflect the attention from you.

You are scum, Tiruin. Attack Tiruin

[Caz]

What kind of reactions would you be looking for?

When someone dies and flips traitor I'd expect the scum to get more nervous about winning and try more to aggressively control the game. They would tend to make more mistakes this way. If a town flipped, I'd expect the scum to overcompensate in trying to look town, being all gung-ho about hunting down scum.

Tiruin: First you attempt to defend the Prince (despite IO not being under attack and being called on it by Meph) to look loyal, then when others (Caz and myself) pointed that out, you deflected it by saying it was a "Reaction Test", which I claimed was BS. Then you made up some crap about me mentioning my survival and panicking, to I called you out on. You then proceeded to call me "jumpy" to once more deflect the attention from you.

You are scum, Tiruin. Attack Tiruin

I am a bit worried about your loyalty, Deathsword. You are playing this game very reactively, and seem agitated. Why not try scumhunting rather than trying to defend yourself and attacking the player that believes you to be a traitor?


What about Leafsnail's suggestion that all kills should be sanctioned by the prince to avoid scum involvement? What say you Lord IronyOwl?