Print

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

CLOSED

0 (0%)

Romosome

2 (40%)

Niku

1 (20%)

Classic

0 (0%)

Laser

0 (0%)

Koah is DEAD

0 (0%)

Envy

0 (0%)

Newbie

0 (0%)

McDohl is DEAD

0 (0%)

Kazz is DEAD

0 (0%)

Kayma

0 (0%)

Transportation is DEAD

0 (0%)

Verde is DEAD

0 (0%)

Angry Beaver is DEAD

0 (0%)

Friend

0 (0%)

Zara is DEAD

0 (0%)

Guild is DEAD

0 (0%)

Smiler is DEAD

0 (0%)

Zach is DEAD

0 (0%)

NexAdruin

2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

[Smiler]

Okay, Classic was being voted on because he didn't throw out a lynch vote right away. Koah bandwagoned onto Classic, but he didn't post something like "I agree with everyone. We should kill one of the guys who didn't vote in the first post he made" while voting, which made him a target.

What I am saying is that the two people on the chopping block are there for really stupid reasons. I might still vote for someone, since the accused are acting strange. Classic votes for Koah after he's been targeted, and Koah hasn't even made a post since he voted.

[Friend]

Con arguments:
1) Giving up two lynches extends the game by one day. This trade-off is more beneficial to the scum. Giving up just one does not extend the game at all.

I don't think anyone is advocating not lynching someone to extend the game's length. I, for example, suggested the possibility of a no lynch for TODAY and only today because in terms of numbers, the best chance we have of lynching an innocent is on day one.

Con arguments:
2) Giving up ANY lynch means we lose information, the most important being the HAMMER vote, or killing vote.

This is true.

Con arguments:
3) The scum have a 100% chance to kill an enemy each turn, and we do not.

We DON''T have a 100% chance of killing an enemy with the lynch, while scum (vampires anyways) have a 100% chance of killing someone, excluding instances when someone has a cross or star etc. That's why, in terms of percentages, we should vote to kill when the chance to kill an innocent isn't so abysmal.

Con arguments:
4) The lynch is the only power nilla innos have.

True. However, that doesn't mean we need to use it, especially when it will probably backfire and kill and innocent.

Pro arguments others are making (as far as I can tell):
1) An inno doesn't die. Whoopdy doo.

Yes, an innocent doesn't die. You seem to be severely underestimating the usefulness of having an innocent be alive rather than dead.

Pro arguments others are making (as far as I can tell):
2) Players get to avoid having to make a tough call and give us information by voting patterns. This is actually a con, imho.

I'm pretty sure Bongo made this point as a con, as well. However, this is really the same point as your second con argument.


I think it really comes down to killing an innocent versus the potential benefits that people's voting patterns provides down the road.
Information versus team killing? I would argue that there isn't much information to be gleaned from day one lynching as compared to the value we gain from (probably) killing an innocent. However, having said that, I am not going to vote for any side until the quiet people post more.

[Classic]

Barring some exceptions, being quiet is the best way to hide a special role. Even when players have been "vigilant" for the quiet ones, it seems like a quiet someone always slips through.

Anyhow, I've decided to move to a no lynch because we need to give our seers time to start building a bloc. Without a centralized informed innocent power structure, we're basically praying for the bads to annihilate each other.

[the asshole you hate]

Classic votes for Koah after he's been targeted, and Koah hasn't even made a post since he voted.

I feel that it looks like scum putting virtual distance between each other with votes (hi friday). That's why I'm all over Koah right now. I half think he's supposed to be the 'good looking one' for voting Classic, meaning he's got the more important scumrole.

I'm for sure not changing my vote unless Ohak says something REALLY insightful, and soon.

Sorry for posting too much. I always do that.

Con arguments:
3) The scum have a 100% chance to kill an enemy each turn, and we do not.

We DON''T have a 100% chance of killing an enemy with the lynch, while scum (vampires anyways) have a 100% chance of killing someone, excluding instances when someone has a cross or star etc. That's why, in terms of percentages, we should vote to kill when the chance to kill an innocent isn't so abysmal.

The odds will probably only get WORSE from here on out, especially if we don't start weeding out scum NOW before the vampires take the fuck over. This is the only anti-inno thing you've said, and it's suspicious. Please expand on it!

Con arguments:
4) The lynch is the only power nilla innos have.

True. However, that doesn't mean we need to use it, especially when it will probably backfire and kill and innocent.

Of course! We will kill an innocent most of the time! There are informed groups voting along with us. I bet there is a wolfpire on each bandwagon. Good! That's the point of sacrifice in this game; gaining information. I bet there's ONLY one member of each scumteam on each bandwagon, which is even more information for later.

Pro arguments others are making (as far as I can tell):
1) An inno doesn't die. Whoopdy doo.

Yes, an innocent doesn't die. You seem to be severely underestimating the usefulness of having an innocent be alive rather than dead.

I will gladly die by the hammer, tooth or fang if it helps my team win. Are you so special that you wouldn't? Because if you are so special, it's either a power role claim or you're scum. Both appearances are ideally avoided by ALL players, so regardless of if I'm the baner, I have to be casual about my life to protect myself.

Pro arguments others are making (as far as I can tell):
2) Players get to avoid having to make a tough call and give us information by voting patterns. This is actually a con, imho.

I'm pretty sure Bongo made this point as a con, as well. However, this is really the same point as your second con argument.

Agreed. Withdrawn.

I think it really comes down to killing an innocent versus the potential benefits that people's voting patterns provides down the road.
Information versus team killing? I would argue that there isn't much information to be gleaned from day one lynching as compared to the value we gain from (probably) killing an innocent. However, having said that, I am not going to vote for any side until the quiet people post more.

I respectfully disagree, but I don't think you're scum for this opinion, just misguided. I like that you're helping make this conversation and day last! Long days are good for innos.

[the asshole you hate]

The following people are being voted on.
No Lynch 5: Zach, Kazz, Newbie, Smiler, Classic
Koah 4: Lee-Ham, Guild, Niku, Kayma
Classic 3: Koah, angry beaver, Zaratustra
Niku 1: Bongo Bill
McDoh 1: Envy
Friend 1: Verde
Bongo 1: NexAdruin


The following people have yet to vote.
Romosome
Transportation
Friend

[Friend]

Con arguments:
3) The scum have a 100% chance to kill an enemy each turn, and we do not.

We DON''T have a 100% chance of killing an enemy with the lynch, while scum (vampires anyways) have a 100% chance of killing someone, excluding instances when someone has a cross or star etc. That's why, in terms of percentages, we should vote to kill when the chance to kill an innocent isn't so abysmal.

The odds will probably only get WORSE from here on out, especially if we don't start weeding out scum NOW before the vampires take the fuck over. This is the only anti-inno thing you've said, and it's suspicious. Please expand on it!

Day one has the most amount of alive innocents. A day one lynch has the highest chance of hitting an innocent. We will probably lynch an innocent. While I can understand why you would want to try to lynch the bad guys early, we will probably hit an innocent instead, which, not only hurts our numbers, but also helps the other teams(Excluding special cases). (However, note that I am not taking into account the potential information benefit innocents get from the lynch.)

Con arguments:
4) The lynch is the only power nilla innos have.

True. However, that doesn't mean we need to use it, especially when it will probably backfire and kill and innocent.

Of course! We will kill an innocent most of the time! There are informed groups voting along with us. I bet there is a wolfpire on each bandwagon. Good! That's the point of sacrifice in this game; gaining information.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just don't think we'll get much if any useful information from a day 1 lynch.

Pro arguments others are making (as far as I can tell):
1) An inno doesn't die. Whoopdy doo.

Yes, an innocent doesn't die. You seem to be severely underestimating the usefulness of having an innocent be alive rather than dead.

I will gladly die by the hammer, tooth or fang if it helps my team win. Are you so special that you wouldn't? Because if you are so special, it's either a power role claim or you're scum. Both appearances are ideally avoided by ALL players, so regardless of if I'm the baner, I have to be casual about my life to protect myself.

You're missing my point - Numbers are one of the innocent's greatest strengths. While I can understand the need for more information, we can't afford to just casually extinguish one of our best advantages.

I think it really comes down to killing an innocent versus the potential benefits that people's voting patterns provides down the road.
Information versus team killing? I would argue that there isn't much information to be gleaned from day one lynching as compared to the value we gain from (probably) killing an innocent. However, having said that, I am not going to vote for any side until the quiet people post more.

I respectfully disagree, but I don't think you're scum for this opinion, just misguided. I like that you're helping make this conversation and day last! Long days are good for innos.

Agreed!

[the asshole you hate]

Your reasonable attitude is going far to convince me to change, but not before Koah does the rest of the convincing.

[jsnlxndrlv]

This all kind of reminds me of a riddle.

you're a cyborg in a pistol duel with two other cyborgs. you have been programmed to fire pistols with an accuracy of 33%. the other two cyborgs shoot with accuracies of 100% and 50%, respectively. the rules of the duel are one shot per-cyborg per-round. the shooting order is from worst shooter to best shooter. thus, you go first, the 50% guy goes second, and the 100% guy goes third; repeat. if a cyborg dies, we just skip his or her turn, obviously. what should you shoot at in round 1 to maximize your chances of survival over time?

Running the probabilities for every possible outcome, it turns out that the cyborg with the lowest accuracy stands the greatest chance of survival if he shoots at [spoiler]the ground with his first shot[/spoiler].

The situations aren't really the same, but they're close enough that I'm comfortable forgoing the round 1 lynching in favor of maximizing the number of living innocents over time. Let's allow our seer, oracle, PI, watcher, and tracker time to use their powers before we start firing wildly into our own ranks.

[Zaratustra]

grar raar I must say that I have seen no logical arguments to vote for anything but a no lynch.

[the asshole you hate]

you're a cyborg in a pistol duel with two other cyborgs. you have been programmed to fire pistols with an accuracy of 33%. the other two cyborgs shoot with accuracies of 100% and 50%, respectively. the rules of the duel are one shot per-cyborg per-round. the shooting order is from worst shooter to best shooter. thus, you go first, the 50% guy goes second, and the 100% guy goes third; repeat. if a cyborg dies, we just skip his or her turn, obviously. what should you shoot at in round 1 to maximize your chances of survival over time?

Perhaps the inclusion of a second group of enemies in THIS game makes this the best argument I've heard, but it's still silly. Newbie's right: It's a strikingly similar situation to ours. The idea is that you let the more accurate two kill each other rather than eliminating one of them as a threat and leaving yourself open to attack from only one, more-accurate-than-you enemy.

But.

Lynching is always better because it yields information. We aren't one cyborg, we are many, and this is HOW we get more accurate, by firing at people to make information appear. Shooting the ground only gives us what we already  had coming: Night.

[jsnlxndrlv]

Are you kidding me. We have six pages of information. We know who was in favor of lynching whom, who changed their votes, who refrained from voting altogether, and we have considerable back-and-forth. The fact that we don't actually kill someone (and find out that they're innocent, and therefore that some unknown number of people who voted for him were evil all along) doesn't mean we won't be able to draw conclusions based on that information, when taken together with tomorrow's voting and the death(s?) that may happen tonight.

Some number of people voting to no-lynch are evil, just as some number of people voting for a werewolf or a vampire would be evil as well. The amount of info we get from the day one lynch is not much different whether we actually go through with the killing or not.

[the asshole you hate]

...fine you're right that IS a lot of posts.

No lynch.

pussies

[the asshole you hate]

Four more No Lynch votes will end the day.

Or we could kill Koah.

[Verde]

The problem with the no-lynch isn't so much that we'd be eliminating the lynch as the town's only weapon, but that we'd be eliminating the process of lynching. I absolutely believe we have to put pressure on people, which we do by seeing how they respond both to being voted and the threat of lynch. You an argue we've got six pages of information, but it looks to me like pages 3-6 are basically just debating the merits of not lynching -- hardly any more helpful than putting somebody on the spot and seeing how they respond.

Of course, if you guys are advocating a no-lynch but also planning to instigate a thorough grilling of every player before dusk, then I am IN. So long as we're not just putting our hands in our pockets and waiting for the nightkill.

[the asshole you hate]

I agree with you but I don't want my blustering to get me killed d1 again.

[Kazz]

What's the rush, Kazz? There's plenty of time left in the day to trick a suspicious player into revealing a vital clue that we'll only understand later and not kill anybody.

I want you to tell me when this has ever happened.

[the asshole you hate]

What's the rush, Kazz? There's plenty of time left in the day to trick a suspicious player into revealing a vital clue that we'll only understand later and not kill anybody.

I want you to tell me when this has ever happened.

It has happened in every game I've ever played in.

There! Your turn. Tell me when you have eaten toast.

Also, you don't answer questions directed at you, why should anyone do what you ask?

[Kazz]

Are you kidding me. We have six pages of information. We know who was in favor of lynching whom, who changed their votes, who refrained from voting altogether, and we have considerable back-and-forth. The fact that we don't actually kill someone (and find out that they're innocent, and therefore that some unknown number of people who voted for him were evil all along) doesn't mean we won't be able to draw conclusions based on that information, when taken together with tomorrow's voting and the death(s?) that may happen tonight.

Some number of people voting to no-lynch are evil, just as some number of people voting for a werewolf or a vampire would be evil as well. The amount of info we get from the day one lynch is not much different whether we actually go through with the killing or not.

thank you for saying this, I was about to make a very similar post.

The fact is, if we lynch an innocent on day one, we're likely to lynch the guy who voted for him first (who has an equal chance of being innocent), and if we lynch a bad guy, everybody's going to be all "well i didn't like him anyway."

Day one voting patterns are not a place to look for valuable information.

The problem with the no-lynch isn't so much that we'd be eliminating the lynch as the town's only weapon, but that we'd be eliminating the process of lynching. I absolutely believe we have to put pressure on people, which we do by seeing how they respond both to being voted and the threat of lynch. You an argue we've got six pages of information, but it looks to me like pages 3-6 are basically just debating the merits of not lynching -- hardly any more helpful than putting somebody on the spot and seeing how they respond.

Of course, if you guys are advocating a no-lynch but also planning to instigate a thorough grilling of every player before dusk, then I am IN. So long as we're not just putting our hands in our pockets and waiting for the nightkill.

How well one puts up with totally pressureless interrogation is not an indicator of wolfishness.

Watch my hands, they're going in my pockets.

[Kazz]

What's the rush, Kazz? There's plenty of time left in the day to trick a suspicious player into revealing a vital clue that we'll only understand later and not kill anybody.

I want you to tell me when this has ever happened.

It has happened in every game I've ever played in.

There! Your turn. Tell me when you have eaten toast.

Also, you don't answer questions directed at you, why should anyone do what you ask?

I mean on day one.

And what was your question?

[the asshole you hate]

nvm as long as you aren't ignoring me