Print

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

[NUKE9.13]

In short, I want to see two specific answers from you: 1) What do you expect to gain from the night which would differ from a normal game? 2) Why do you think that he who would have been lynched D1 wouldn't get lynched D2?

1)Well, whoever would have got killed can still use their (probably pro-town) powers to help us. And there are more townies left, because we didn't lynch one D1.
2)I don't. Please read. If, in the cold light of dawn (tempers having being tempered by a nights rest), they still look like scum, I have no problem with lynching them. I suspect that they will not look like scum anymore, unless they actually are. Mistakes could still be made, but I consider it less likely.

No Lynch. Proposing this D1- does this really make me scum? Why would I, as scum, propose this course of action? Does this seem likely? In what situation would I, as town, propose this course of action? Does this seem likely? In what situation would this, from a town perspective, actually be the right thing to do? Does this seem likely?

And this is just pure WIFOM.

Those questions are not rhetorical. I am not suggesting an answer to the questions. It is not my intention, nor is it, I believe, a likely occurrence, that someone trying to answer those questions for themselves would find themselves stuck in a loop of escalating levels of bluff.

Blatant WIFOM. As mentioned by Dariush like several seconds ago.

No. See above. ((Also it was three minutes precisely, not several seconds.))

TolyK:
Do you, truly, really, actually believe that you (or anyone else for that matter) is good enough to pick out scum from the crowd reliably D1?

Nope.

Me, I don't. This based on a long list of prior D1s where obvscum has been lynched and flipped town, whilst the scum flew completely under the radar.

... which is what I (tried to) say.

So even if we get scum-tells, I strongly recommend patience, rather than jumping to string 'em up.

... yeah, kinda. Except that by jumping on them you get even more info/stuff to work with, which is good for me (I don't pick up subtle things too well, so more info always helps).

You earn little information from the death of a towny itself. At least, little valuable information. The process leading up to it, yes. I do not disagree. I am not advocating doing away with the process and ending the day right now with no one lynched; that would be stupid. I am merely objecting to the death at the end of the process.

[TolyK]

um...
rhetorical questions are the ones you're *not* supposed to answer, get your grammar right

Also, I am for using pressure votes, not lynching dat_other_dude_rite_there just 'cause.

[NUKE9.13]

I got my grammar right. What on earth are you talking about? They are not rhetorical questions; the reader is invited to answer them for themselves. I do not suggest an answer. If the reader chooses to go into an endless loop of worrying about odd/even bluffing, that is their problem. I think most people should be able to analyse the chances of each possibility.

For example, in the classic WIFOM situation, the odds are 50/50. You can um and ah, but that is what they are. There are two situations, and arguments can be made for both of them- the odds, then, are 50/50, give or take an insignificant percentage. In a situation where, say, the wine in cup A is bright green, bubbling, and giving off smoke which stings the eyes, whilst it is still possible that cup B has been poisoned, the odds are no longer 50/50. More like 80/20, depending. Once again, you can um and ah, but you would still, with no other information, be smart to drink from cup B. Thus, this situation, whilst similar, is not WIFOM.

Not every situation which has two possibilities, neither of which you can be certain of, is WIFOM.

[TolyK]

erm, yeah. vocab is failing as well for me now
I wanna move back to the US...

[Powder Miner]

Powder Miner:
You are a bandwagoning fuck and I think you are scum. The point of the reaction test has been stated. Saying I am trying to look active is stupid as I clearly actually am active.
Why did you wait until after person voted for me before voicing your concerns? Because you are bandwagoning scum, thats why.

Because I have an actual life and did't see that until then, that's why. In any event, you eem none too plead that I stopped RVSing and started being useful. Perhaps when you said that, you didn't mean for me to scumhunt you?

In any event, I am in no way bandwagoning. Just because I'm going after you for (surprise!) my own reasons, doesn't mean I'm bandwagoning. Because guess what. If you're scummy, you're going to get lynched. Getting really angry and throwing up a yelling wall of text (in which you should next time tyr to throw up non-bogu reasoning) doesn't help that case. And really, if you are trying to use that second point of reasoning, why don't you just use it on everyone who wasn't the first guy t vote you. After all, t's not like it takes more than one vote to lynch someone, and since it's certainly not true that people have their own reasons, obviously everyone who isn't the first guy voting someone is bandwagoning scum no matter how independent their reasons are!

And if you already explained it,  a. show me, and b. Why did you continue? Also, c. Ridiculous tests like that never help. Would you expect claiming joat and that I'm mafia watcher D1 in a BM to work?

[NUKE9.13]

And if you already explained it,  a. show me

I assume that this is what you were talking about when you talked about a reaction test:

Andrew425:
Ignoring people is not nice, but it is a way better reaction than the one I expected! Good job, you are off the hook.
To answer the question: What the fuck were you doing; I was trying to prove that D1 lynches are bullshit. I was expecting a panicky reaction from him, which I would respond to by stating clearly that my case was not to be taken seriously, then presenting a case which made him look like obvscum.
Happily, he ignored me, probably out of confusion. This has me inclined towards thinking that A) He's alright and B) He's maybe not scum (the chance of him being scum in my eyes has slightly decreased)

As for B and C:
b)I didn't
c)Yes they do.

Also, throwing up a giant wall of text is scummy now? Responding, point for point, to everyone who I need to respond to, is me getting 'really angry'?
What would you have me do, Powder Miner? Ignore everyone?

You are a bandwagoning fuck. Your pitiful attempt to counter this suggestion amounts to reductio ad absurdum which is not the best debating strategy. You did not provide enough of a case to justify a lynch of me; you need more than just 'why are you doing a reaction test' to want someone dead. Other people provided sufficient (if sadly misguided) reasons to want me lynched. You, not so much.
Which is not to say that you are scum- I get the impression that you aren't paying a lot of attention to the game, and as town it can be tempting to bandwagon in this situation. But, town or scum, you remain a bandwagoning fuck, and I really wish you wouldn't do that.

Oh, and I am glad that you stopped RVSing. What, you want me to praise people for not doing something wrong now? I'd be at it all day- most people are actually quite competent!

[Powder Miner]

NUKE, that was in the same post you were berating me for something "you already explained" in. So I was supposed to read that first part and time-travel to change my posts?

[Powder Miner]

EBWODP: NUKE, I'm not bandwagoning. I have my own reasons (which you even see are reasons), and just because you say they're invalid doesn't make them invalid. Plus, absolute falseness of one of your points (which I just pointed out) makes me want to hang you more.

[webadict]

I don't think we should lynch NUKE.

[TolyK]

I don't think we should lynch NUKE.

Well he's acting like himself 
I think we should wait until the other folks come in to make any decisions...
>.>

[Orangebottle]

You don't seem the least bit upset over accomplishing nothing, OrangeBottle. Nor following up your questioning with something useful.

And quit being an idiot. Of course I'm not fully ready to lynch TolyK. I'm just shoving him around a bit.

Of course I'm not upset. What do you expect me to do, run around screaming in rage because a large argument I had ended up doing nothing? I fail to see how that moves me on the scumminess scale, so I assume this is a pressure vote.

No Lynch. Proposing this D1- does this really make me scum? Why would I, as scum, propose this course of action? Does this seem likely? In what situation would I, as town, propose this course of action? Does this seem likely? In what situation would this, from a town perspective, actually be the right thing to do? Does this seem likely?

Orangebottle
To a degree, the same response as to MBP. To a lesser degree, though, because I get the impression that you have at the very least briefly considered what I have asked MBP to consider.
One thing you have been accosting me over: Apparently I am advocating doing nothing. I do not recall this happening. When did this happen. Have I, am I, doing nothing? I do not believe so. No Lynch does not preclude people from talking. It does not preclude people from spilling their scumguts all over the place. However, it does mean no one dies at the end.
I believe that D1 lynches often hit the wrong people. Even when one is really quite certain. In... what was it? Totem? I proposed just lynching someone at random, because it would have a higher chance of hitting scum than a well-thought out lynch. I would propose the same here, but for fear that we might lose someone interesting. (Totem, being a Meph game, was liable to be less chaotic than this one. Also I was scum and wanted everyone dead ASAP)

I could answer a number of these questions, but they look like WIFOM and I'd like to know why you're using them.
We would still miss out on the information we get from the lynch, getting information from the night kill is almost always WIFOM, and confirming things beyond kills recquires a lot of claiming which only provides the scum with very valuable targets for possible roleblocking/killing/etc.

LYNCH THE LURKERS!
ALSO LYNCH WEBADICT BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS SCUM PAST N1 RIGHT?

Lovely.

I don't think we should lynch NUKE.

This does seem to be in line with his meta as either side. Not sure I'm ready to remove my vote just for that, though.

[Simple]

Simple: Ottofar, because he's never cooperative. I'm trying my best to recalibrate my scum-o-meter on him so I don't automatically flail at him every time I play with him. Also Dariush and NUKE because both their playstyles and their reactions to each other mean I can do jack shit with them D1, my mental vision gets too clogged up.

Fair enough. Unvote Think0028..

ECrownofFire: What's up with calling out Irony's question loaded and then refusing to comment when called out on it? Trying to stay on the sidelines and stir up trouble?

I didn't feel it needed anything more than a comment on it. It's not really such a massive scumtell that I'd go right after him.

This on the other hand is massively disturbing ,ECrownofFire. You pursue nobody and you choose to ignore scumtells ? Unless you want to jump into the game only when easy bandwagon shows up ? I want you to explain in more detail why you won't go after him.

...

Why are you so passive in forming opinions on Nuke's plan ? Do you agree or not ?

WoT

I'll try to fix my lurkiness. As for short opinion : No-lynch have some advantages but i would rather like to see one non-random death before d2 starts it at least makes everyone take some stance on it. And stop exaggerating lynching scum is not completely unlikely d1, especially if you choose from the people you can't get a good read on (yeah that's my d1 plan).If we no-lynch i expect no big shift of opinions d2 unless we got some weird flips. Huh, now that i think of it it won't differ much if we lynch somebody, thanks for messing with my head..

[TolyK]

...

Why are you so passive in forming opinions on Nuke's plan ? Do you agree or not ?

His no-lynching is illogical (but usual for his meta, right?). I don't agree with Nuke on no-lynch, but lynching the first guy that pops up is not a good idea either. Since D1 lynches are usually useless.

Now that i think about it, with third parties this might kinda suck. *is confused*

[TolyK]

To be more precise, I mean that I'm not trying to be passive, but I'm more clueless in this case, and I don't want to do anything that could harm town. 

[NUKE9.13]

Simple: I'm glad that someone understands where I am coming from.

I don't think we should lynch NUKE.

Aww yisss. You heard it, folks. Webadict says no lynching NUKE. Make with the unvoting; the man's the king of mafia. [/joke]

NUKE, that was in the same post you were berating me for something "you already explained" in. So I was supposed to read that first part and time-travel to change my posts?

Sorry, yes. I should have made that clearer. I was not actually berating you for not being able to travel through time; I just meant that I was not going to write it out again. I probably should have said 'see above'.

EBWODP: NUKE, I'm not bandwagoning. I have my own reasons (which you even see are reasons), and just because you say they're invalid doesn't make them invalid. Plus, absolute falseness of one of your points (which I just pointed out) makes me want to hang you more.

Even if they aren't invalid, they are not sufficient. Your vote on me was for doing a 'ridiculous reaction test'. Now, you may think that is bad. You may even think that is scummy. But I find it very hard to believe that you think that is lynch-worthy.

I could answer a number of these questions, but they look like WIFOM and I'd like to know why you're using them.

Because I do not think MBP, and to a lesser degree yourself, have thought about this. I think this because from MBP (and to a lesser degree yourself) all I am hearing is NO LYNCH BAD, QED YOU BAD, which isn't much of an argument and is rather hard to respond to. I have explained why I don't think a no lynch is as bad in this situation, and MBP has yet to respond to this. You have responded, to a degree. Certainly below is a fairly valid response, to which I am going to respond.

We would still miss out on the information we get from the lynch, getting information from the night kill is almost always WIFOM, and confirming things beyond kills requires a lot of claiming which only provides the scum with very valuable targets for possible roleblocking/killing/etc.

-If you assume (as I am doing) that whoever we lynch D1 is town, all the information we might get is also attained without killing them. The role-flip information is rather useless when the user is dead, and for a baseline of what other roles are like (allowing us to form expectations of the average role), NKs are just as effective.
-This is the Power Role Problem. When to reveal? Ideally, not until said reveal will end the game in victory for the town. However, I believe that in most games, a guilty investigation result is always worth revealing. Less significant information, not always, but people don't need to reveal information to act upon it. Every vote counts, and a cop who knows someone is innocent not voting for that person could swing the balance in their favour. Conversely, a cop who knows someone is probably guilty can make a case with additional confidence, increasing its strength and swinging the balance against them.

LYNCH THE LURKERS!
ALSO LYNCH WEBADICT BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS SCUM PAST N1 RIGHT?

Lovely.

Isn't it just?