Scripten:
I'm certainly suspicious of Cheetar, but Flabort shows himself to be much more scummy by this play in my book. I suppose you could say I agree with Cheetar, but only on a superficial level.
Huh.
Ok, so you are coming up with the same answer as Cheeetar, but for different reasons then, thus only 'superficially agreeing' with Cheeetar?
Please explain your reasons.
Cheeetar:
Also: huzzah for no night deaths! We're doing something right.
When you typed this, did you have -any- consideration or concern for arsonist, conversion, or other negative things that may have happened in place of a N1 kill, or was 'no kill=good, pro-Town play' the only thing you considered?
TolyK:
I might be able to confirm a townie.
Why did you tell us this?
I'll say that a SK is pretty much a given in a large game like this one. You need it.
Please explain why an SK is needed in a large game like this one. Who needs an SK?
Cheeetar:
Cheeetar, if another player had made the choice you did at the end of D1, what questions would you want to ask that player? Do you consider 'acting to save oneself' to be appropriate for every player under every condition of high pressure/immediate threat of death?
Not for every circumstance, but if a townie is given a choice between themselves dying and somebody else who they don't really know anything about yet dying, the townie should probably pick the other dude. Is this a controversial view?
I bolded the question you failed to answer.
In addition to still wanting it answered, I also want an explanation of why you completely ignored that question when you answered me.
You ask in turn 'Is this a controversial view', and you ask it while you are engaged in a debate with multiple people discussing views very counter to what you expressed. So I say that the answer is
clearly yes. So clearly, I also ask you in turn,
why did you ask me if it was a controversial view?
flabort:
Your first attempt to use your double vote:
No, my one-shot is Vote-ato, and I'll prove that it's not clearing the board by simultaneously voting Cheeetar and Shakerag.
What did you believe the board would look like at that point? And/or did you believe that the game was already over at this point, with both Cheeetar and Shakerag hammered? If not, why not?
At that point, votecount showed you still voting for Cheeetar only. So:
Oh, yeah, and now I need to do both simultaneously it seems.
Cheetar, shakerag
Again, what did you believe the board would look like at that point? And/or did you believe that the game was already over at this point, with both Cheeetar and Shakerag hammered? If not, why not?
But votecount now showed you voting once for each of those people.
At that point, that is when you voted 8 times for both of those people.
Now, about your claimed intentions about those 8 votes.
B) Someone having more votes on them then me would make me safe.
C) I didn't want to be responsible for killing either of them if they wound up town.
D) I didn't want to cause a tie.
G) Whoever cast the hammer vote would come under suspicion from the whole town.
Therefor, while it was a hasty and self-preserving action, there was plenty of reason behind it and I believed it would help town.
You had 2 votes on you. You state that someone having more votes on them than you would make you safe. You claim that whomever cast the hammer would come under suspicion of the whole Town. You claim you had plenty of reason behind what you did.
Any number of votes more than 2 would 'make you safe' by the logic you used, -and- you clearly can change your votecount at will; you had done so with your multi-votes once already. Why did you immediately move to 8 votes, a completely loaded hammer-gun, instead of a lower votecount that you remained capable of changing at will if you later found it necessary or useful?
Furthermore, you -knew- you had this ability. How could you feel frightened of or threatened at all by having 2 votes on you? You had the power to instantly change that at any time. Extension had already happened, day end wasn't going to be for 2 more days. You were very, very far from a hammer and online. Explain in detail please, how you felt any fear or urgency in this situation. You appear to me to have held every card and complete control over the votecount needed to protect yourself at any point.
IronyOwl:
Imp, TolyK, CAPTAIN EAGLES, Varee: If you were in Cheeetar or Shakerag's position yesterday, would you have hammered the other choice as quickly as you could have? If you'd gotten on before either of them, would you have immediately hammered whichever one of them you liked or trusted least? Why?
I was online and watching at the time. I did not hammer, though I also had no idea if a hammer was actually possible until after Cheeetar had hammered (I did not know if flabort's votes had a measure or not, I was not sure what was going on. My last refresh before the hammer was before wubba posted the votecount showing the 8 votes on each). Had I seen the votecount, I would not have hammered.
If I had been picked to be one of the targets of the prisoner's dilema, I'm not sure what I would have done on the spot. I've never seen a situation like this before; I did not view it 'one or both of those players is about to be killed' until it happened; I've little previous experience with hammers. This has been a great chance to think about it and decide. I think I would have been quite calm and discussing matters as I understood them - I didn't really understand hammer at that point.
Now that I -know- that Cheeetar would instantly kill if in a situation where he could instantly die, if I were balanced against Cheeetar, this is what I would do:
If I did not have a highly useful night ability, I would attempt to discuss and wait, and probably try to talk flabort into changing the situation to allow more discussion and less risk of instant death, reminding that he can always change it back when the talking is done.
If I had a highly useful night ability, one that I believed the use of would tremendously benefit Town, and it was -Cheeetar- I was balanced against (I know I have no time in that case, for Cheeetar will instantly vote me the first moment he is aware of the choice, it for sure is a race measured in seconds), I would try to kill Cheeetar and save my use of the night ability. I would use it and pray I lived long enough into the night for it to take affect; when day came if I was still alive I would fullclaim, explain my reasoning, accept and agree that my actions were absolutely suspicious, and spend that day scumhunting. Maybe I could help uncover useful clues for my team; for sure I would put a ton of effort into doing so and into clearing the mud I'd added to the water by my actions.
Varee:
so someone get the house. I will be real happy if whoever got it said so. Also on second thought it might not be a house. more like toilet or something.
Do you need explicit consent to target someone for that house? You had said you wanted to know who would get the house. Why didn't you target someone specifically so you would know who got it?
Toaster:
A better question is this:
Flabort: If you're town, why didn't you simply hammer everybody but yourself?
Why did you specify 'If you're town' in that question? If he could have hammered everyone, there's extremely few roles he could possibly have where he would not win by hammering everyone but himself (ironically, the something-ally roles are among those).
What was the purpose of this very odd question, and why do you think this is a 'better question'?
Author
Topic: BYOR 13 - Game Over: Thirteen (Read 259451 times)