Feel free to pursue that retaliatory case, as I still haven't worked out new reads.
Are there any questions you might have?
Nah, I won't bother with a case on you right now. As I said, I need hard evidence to back up a suspicion, and you passed my quiz without leaving a single thing for evidence. Avoided every trap, didn't get caught up, explained everything fairly well.
Questions, though, I do have one.
What should we do, in your opinion, if you die during the night but there is still a grave disturbed? What if your guard dies in the night instead?
3) Seriousness is not directly indicative of town or scum alignment. Seriousness/non-seriousness are indicative of how visible a player desires to be, as can be activity levels. Where X is seriousness and Y is activity (on a scale from 0 to 10), and Z is visibility, we get the following equation: Z=|Y-5|+(X-5). Where Z is equal to one or two, they're most likely scum, and where Z is equal to seven to ten, also most likely scum. Between three and five, you have a mix of scum and town.
flabort: Hm? What's a 0 and what's a 6 on the Z scale? Serious, active players (say, round 8s-10s in X and Y) are likely scum? Anyone highly visible is probably scum? Is one end of the spectrum more likely scum than the other? Please explain in more detail.
Also, now that you've given three definitions of tunneling, please tell me which applies in each use of the term in your read list (your reads of Roo and I) and why that definition applies.
And
now I see I got a + where I meant a -. Should have fixed that typo while fixing the rest of my math. Arg.
It's Z=|Y-5|-(X-5)
Z=0~1: Nearly invisible. Posts often enough that nobody notices them lurking, but doesn't say anything to catch attention. Ideal for scum players.
Z=2~4: Low content players, often those who are too lazy to post or experiencing life troubles. At the bottom we have people who are trying to hide information by not posting often or in big posts.
Z=5~6: Middle of the road. Maybe gets accused of lurking, or of being too active, catches some flak for silliness or so, but doesn't do much wrong. Many players fall under here.
Z=7~8: Highly visible players who probably post pretty often (or who post massive infodumps), but fail to convey any useful information due to silly/fluff/prose.
[sarcasm]Definitely not hiding any useful information for malicious reasons[/sarcasm]. Typically doesn't have any useful information for the town that they want to share.
Z=9~10: Trying too damn hard to be active, and not having anything to actually contribute, so fills in by being silly and/or stupid; a state typically achieved by scum trying to take advantage of NQT's "active players are rarely scum" theory. Alternatively, lowest number of posts possible, and no content in said posts. Typically achieved by people requiring replacement or actively lurking scum.
You'd want to be a 4 to a 6. The lower end of the spectrum is more likely scum, because more scum try to play that way then the upper end. However, the upper end of the spectrum is larger because that level of visibility is hard to achieve.
Roo's tunneling is definitely definition 1; too much focus on the single player. He pretty much ignored everyone else.
Your tunneling is definition 3 with a little bit of definition 1. You were trying to get him to answer the question, properly, so
had to spend a great deal of time focusing on him instead of others.
Neither of you touched on definition 2.
Peradon: That's some fairly sound logic. And the second case of you being misrepresented. I agree with the first four posts being pretty standard and nothing to complain about. I have to disagree with why he didn't vote on your logic day 1. He's voting me that post, for my vote on a low-activity player. It's strange, though, he
did quote my actual reason for voting OSG there, but then ignores it completely. I'm going to point out that he DID ask Spruce a question, it's the first thing he wrote after spruce's name. He asked him why he was voting that way at that time, a valid question near the end of the day. As far as the inconsistency goes, I think he was talking about how previously you had been talking about chance, then made a
switch to talking about taking other things into considerations. The switch being the important part. Personally, I did not get the impression that you had switched ideologies, but were just using one (the numbers/chance logic) to support the other.
I'm not entirely swayed to your case against TDS, due to there being some soft flaws in it, but I'm willing to consider it. Is there some more evidence that TDS is looking for an easy lynch?
my phone broke. It was getting fixed.
OK. Here's hoping you can make a real post soon, then, with your fixed phone or a computer.
Here's also hoping that there wasn't any irreparable damage.
Author
Topic: Supernatural 8 - Game over! Town Victory (Read 68826 times)