My point on MykBot was not just that he was promoting a bad idea, but that he was promoting a bad idea and he should have known better. I did not vote the bad idea right away, I questioned him about it, and yet he replied that it was “still on the table”. I waited for further comments from Mykbot to make me change my mind and then I finally voted. I don’t understand why Lilflower characterizes this vote as “lazy”.
Lilflower’s comment:
is a gross mischaracterization of what I said. It’s not even close to what I said. What I said was,
No where did I say that Mykbot was telling us to target ourselves every night. And in fact, Mykbot didn’t say anything close to that either.
As best I can recall, that hasn’t been discussed yet. It’s worth considering.
Here’s another possibility I just thought of: There might be multiple Scum teams, each with their own Night kill.
In reply to Drain Bead, it seems to me we want to maximize information overNight. I suggest players who are awful at identifying Scum or Town (such as me) choose their targets semi-randomly to improve the odds of more people being the sole actors on their targets.
Insert: It just occurred to me that we lose information later on about who targeted whom; Dead players tell no tales about their actions. So there’s no way to tell on Day 5 who from the Night 1 deaths targeted whom; we will have lots of early-game uncertainty.
Back to the main thought: It seems to me that for now, people who ARE good at identifying Scum or Town ought to target Tonight players they think may be Scum and avoid players they think may be Town. The intent of this, IMO, is for people to figure out that they might be a killing role or not, and choose their Night 2 targets accordingly. Opinions?
Serial posting: 21 players have votes down so far (per Gad in #501). 14 players therefore don’t. I strongly encourage everybody to have a vote down Today, more so than normal, just because there’s so many of us.
ISTM Day 3 or 4 is a good time to consider the usefulness of Lynch & Target Lurkers & Non-Voters. (Then again, that’s usually a good time to consider the usefulness of Lynch the Lurkers; this game just adds Night actions for everybody.)
How does that not add up to you thinking he was telling us to continue to target ourselves? And again, you are voting for him for a bad idea (calling it “promoting a bad idea” is semantics) which I think is lazy.
This is…off. From backing off the Peeker vote to the reasons stated for the Peeker vote to the vote on Jan. This isn’t right, and what’s more, this isn’t Ed.
Oh, for the people from other boards, stuff in green is used for in thread communications with the game mods over here. Since we aren’t allowed to ask questions to the mods directly in this game my bit of green is a rhetorical device in this instance, but I wanted it to make sense to y’all.
As for the vote itself. Same two posts as peeker highlighted:
Response to Dancecat saying she didn’t want to ruffle feathers. DanceCat argues she’s hardly been quiet, which is technically true but sort of misses the point of Giraffe’s implied argument. (I think she exploits a weakness in Giraffe’s phrasing to make his argument look worse than it is.)
If I have a problem with this it’s with the tone. Giraffe’s original argument was fine-by-day-one standards on its own merits and didn’t require the concession or the qualification about the earlier posts. And the last sentence makes my teeth itch.
At this point I think that votes on either one of the pair are justified. I don’t see myself voting for peeker.
I’m still thinking on a vote. Most of my inclinations are on OtherBoarders, so I think my views are being colored by the cultural differences. I agree that krayz’s posting thus far has been less than pro-Town, but I’m not convinced that it’s any sort of a tell. The case on peeker has compelling meta-game aspects, but I’d like something more substantial than his tone to base a vote on.
Do you have more to say than just this at this juncture? Even without a vote? I appreciate you weighing in on Peek, and I appreciate your hesitation to vote for OBs on a kneejerk (I am probably being to soft on some of them for similar reasons) but this post doesn’t say a whole heck of a lot about what you are thinking?
Sorry for doing a bit of game spamming but I have my vote down and it isn’t changing, but I don’t think that it is going to generate a lot of solid information either. I have a major house project I need to get at least 75% finished today so I won’t be able to just sit in front of the PC for hours today reading and posting like I did yesterday. I got to get in my stuff while I can.
Ok, I’m caught up and doing a massive multi-quote instead of making a zillion posts.
This is what I was suggesting when I said that the targeted player would have to use their best judgment. Obviously seers/vigs/angels/rb’s probably shouldn’t do it, but roles with less value can. It would certainly be better to lose a tracker than to have a bunch of scum knowing their powers.
This is a very, very good post. Too bad I can’t clear you for it, because I know you could do it in either role.
Read on, dude. And if you’re a villager, please start acting like one.
I really wish that you hadn’t made this post because it’s going to make it a LOT harder for me to vote for you, and it’s going to look awful for me if you flip wolf.
I think this is mostly a cultural/play style difference. On the other board, we sometimes find it a lot easier to clear villagers than to hunt wolves. This is particularly applicable on d1 when the village has so littler concrete information to go on. But you can always look for players who are working hard and exhibiting a villagery thought process. The only way you can really find a wolf d1 is based on tone (or if they make some ridic TMI slip or something).
Speaking of finding wolves based on tone, the above is an awful post. But Special Ed beat me to the punch:
I think this is good too. Krayz has mostly just complained and hasn’t made any real effort.
Ok Special Ed is basically mirroring my own thought process, so I’m giving him a town lean (gasp).
I don’t think that you see what I was getting at with my pressure of NAF. My objective was to generate strategy discussion that would benefit the village and prevent us from giving the wolves additional free information. It was successful.
I am, admittedly, having a tougher time finding wolf candidates than I usually do. It might be because I’m used to higher volume games, or because I usually play with the same people over and over (and over) again and there are so many names that are new to me here. I’m also trying to value my gut instinct less and my logic more, so I’m having to read much more closely and put in a lot more effort instead of going with my “gut feeling” and just running with it/screaming for whoever pinged my wolfdar to get lynched (which is my usual early game scumhunting “strategy”). That said, my top two scum reads right now are Silver Jan and Krayz. Silver Jan just made a classic wolf post (as Special Ed already pointed out, so I won’t repeat what he said but his thought process was nearly identical to mine). Krayz is usually a high volume, excited, hardworking player as a villager, and I’m not seeing that here. He’s just complaining/whining and not actually putting any work in. I think either is a good lynch.
Lilflower and Texcat are posting in a manner consisten with their behavior as townies. They are both, to my eyes, slightly quirky players. I like the concept of soft clearing.
Okay, just finished the first page, but I’ve already got a couple things to say.
First… wow. Dude, BAD idea that seems like a good one. Yes, it provides information to the town that we might be able to use, but it provides even more information to scum. It runs a severe risk of outting important roles, particularly the doctor. I don’t think knowing who the doctor is helps the town at all, but it’s very valuable to the scum.
Imagine this scenario, the scum target a player, whether the targets are given the day before or the day after, they can potentially eliminate everyone who targetted that person as a doctor if they die. Or imagine that person survives, they can potentially assume that one of the people who targetted that person is a doctor.
Now, of course, there’s a lot of complications to this, like potential redirections, roleblocking, and all that, but with the additional information that scum have, including that they can lie about their targets, I don’t see how it helps.
It’s the best read I see on the first page, so…
vote NAF
Also, another comment is I see the people calling out MykBot for a “soft-clear”. I don’t really get it. From my previous experience, though it’s counter-intuitive, it’s generally better practice to look for townie tells and eliminate them from your votes than to look for scum tells and vote for the scummiest.
Consider that, especially on day one, any vote, with the exception of scum and possibly whoever got a night result, will be not a whole lot different from pure random. As such, if one can eliminate certain individuals with some decent reason, one reduces the pool in which that randomness is selected, thus improving the chances of hitting scum.
That said, I generally don’t agree with publicizing soft-tells because they’re generally not particularly useful to anyone else if you’re town, but can be used coercively by scum for pro-town rubs when those individuals are lynched. However, considering the culture difference and that it seems others have said it’s something he does, if he reevaluates them later and they don’t give any credence to those rubs, I see it primarily as a null-tell.
Anyway, more to come, even though this is probably all outdated later in the thread…
