This seems like something that would have been better taken to PMs. I'm not a big fan of calling people out in public.
Edit: This post might seem hypocritical, but it's more of a general statement of opinion addressed to everybody. I really do think that this kind of issue is better taken to PMs, and so I'm hoping people will choose to do that in the future.
While I'm specifically mentioning Teh Spectre in my post, I've seen that kind of behavior in others and wanted to air my views on it publically. While this was a phalla, I assume we are still operating under the Debate and Discourse rules of conduct.
TehSpectre was completely right, although he went about it in a very harsh and angry sort of way. If only Villagers could receive items and Baddies couldn't, that would have been stupid, since it's an easy way to confirm innocence. I was mitigating this fact by giving the item descriptions to the Baddies but not the powers, thus also avoiding your concerns (which were valid) that if the Baddies could get the "weapons" of the Village, it would also be unbalanced.
So, he wasn't just trying to be a Baddie and sew confusion and chaos--he was actually trying to help you all avoid a blunder, because what you were arguing about originally was folly.
Like I've said before, my issue was with the way he pursued his argument, not the argument itself. However, to descend back into the debate we were having, my argument was that villagers who could confirm their items in the narration were innocent, not just accurately answer questions about the items pm. While giving the baddies access to item descriptions mitigated the 6 seering a day he was worried about, the act of confirming a villager by having them call an arrow kill or vote change was all I was putting forth, so by arguing against that he wasn't coming across very well.
You're right on both counts. Without the descriptions being available to the Baddies, it would have been ridiculously unfair. And, there was a way for the Baddies to gain descriptions of the items.
Also, I'm just surprised they didn't try to pretend to have received an item by making one up... especially since the going thought in the thread was that Mewin didn't have anything stolen... which was wrong, but doesn't matter, because that was the public thought.
Anyway, the Baddies found a description midway through the game, but didn't try to use the information until later in the game.
[Edit]
Plus, even though it turned out in the end that only Villagers could receive items, there was no way for the players to have known that playing the game, and to assume that was very, very silly.
Some of us clearly didn't think it was silly, because we thought it was the only logical way to have the game balanced. I'm pretty proud of that deduction that we made, and it turned out entirely accurate. While items may not have been RNGed, and bad guys may have had access to item descriptions, neither of those points had any bearing on the theory we put forth; that bad guys couldn't receive items, only villagers could receive items, and that any person who could call their items effect in the narration was innocent.
Bullshit, I was not meta and evil trying to sow dissent.
Had I been part of the village I would have argued the same damn thing.
The thing is, I argued against the idea that if the items were just RNGed to villagers, they would have to be RNGed to baddies as well, or it would be horribly unbalanced.
The thing was, that LaOs had a complicated theme as to how items were distributed and it wasn't just RNGed to the village.
Hence how I was wrong and not wrong at the same time.
Edit: And if you had a problem with the way I was acting or if I was hurting your feelings at all, you needed to PM me. I may be a bit harsh, but that doesn't make me a dick.
The argument ad hominem in attacking us, not our theory, strawmanning our theory, being meta with your arguing from supposed authority, etc. etc. This is the Debate and Discourse forum so I was frankly expecting better. You keep qualifying your actions, but the simple fact is that bad guys couldn't get items and only villagers could. You weren't hurting my feelings, I am just concerned with how you went about making your arguments. Even after the game and Laos' reveal of game mechanics, we still seem to disagree on what happened, but once you ran out of ways to argue against the theory, you should have simply said that you agree to disagree, not resorted to personal attacks. We should try to make these games fun and welcoming, and what would have happened if this was my first time playing? The newbie might have backed down, but if they stuck to their guns like I did, all they would have been rewarded with was abuse from a self-proclaimed phalla balancing expert. Even if they saw that they were in fact right at the end of the game, would they really want to stick around to play other games if the reaction to their theories is abuse and personal attacks? I didn't pm you because you aren't the only person guilty of this. I see this alot and I wanted to say my peace about it. Everyone says they want to get new blood into the game, and dismiss the accusations of cliqueness, but people actually need to make these games welcoming and something new players want to come back to.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
[Edit]
Now, it may be that when you were saying that you believed that anyone who received an item was verified as innocent you really meant that anyone who received an item and called the results of using that item was verified as innocent, but I don't think you actually said the second part... at least, not until later in the swing of the discussions, maybe even after it was hypothesised that only a subset of Villagers could get items. If you did actually say that, then I apologise for missing it, because if you had said that, the basis for my comments would not exist, and I wouldn't have said anything.
I agree with that. EDIT: That = network running method.
Also re: Frosteey
Ok, enlighten me as to why I'm a moron for thinking that in the early game, maximizing the kills from the random flailing about that is the village vote for the first day certainly and frequently the second day as well, presuming no egregious errors from the baddies, is a good thing.
I totally understand how it was good in the late game for Thetheroo and friends to kill as many people on their suspect list as possible, but without a suspect list, I don't see the point. Sure it decreases uncertainty slightly, but at the loss of 1) potential sources for ideas and 2) since I'm less concerned with winning, and more with people having a good time, fucks someone over in that regard too. The risk doesn't seem worth the reward when there aren't good cases to be made against people, whether because they're not in the network, or suspicious behavior, or a seering or whatever. Explain your reasoning, because if there's something I've overlooked, I'd like to hear it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
The only item that could be called for a fact (in the narration) would be the arrow.
Ulta, I attacked you for the reason that you weren't a newbie and should have known better.
You're being surprisingly bitter and whiny when everyone else seems to be doing alright.
So you only treat other phalla players the poorly? Good? Also, how can you say I should have known better? It turns out I did know better! As for your bitter/whiny comment, eh, whatever, if you want to continue to act this way their is nothing I can do stop you, I just expect better and am disappointed.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
The only item that could be called for a fact (in the narration) would be the arrow.
Also the powder. In addition, the shield could be claimed, and while there was a low chance of it being confirmed, it did exist.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
The thread is 92 pages, is there a way to search just this thread for just my posts?
No, you're turning something that wasn't meant to be vicious into a big phalla-clique shitfest, when there was nothing of the sort.
DUE and I aren't on bad terms, we don't hate eachother.
Evilbob and I are showing no problems.
Fuck, I commend Thetheroo on rocking a decent goodguy network even though he was a new player.
You took my actions as though I was trying to make you feel bad about yourself, whereas it wasn't like that at all. I say it again that if you had a problem with how I acted towards you, you needed to tell me in PMs, not try to "call me out" after the game ended.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
The only item that could be called for a fact (in the narration) would be the arrow.
Also the powder. In addition, the shield could be claimed, and while there was a low chance of it being confirmed, it did exist.
The powder couldn't be absolutely confirmed (thus, confirmed) because there were many other issues that could affect the vote in slight ways.
Using the Arrow made every vote against you (the Arrow user) count for two instead of one. Not using the Powder made your vote null. Using the Powder but only on one person made your vote count as one against you. Both Brothers had votes that counted double. The Lantern made it so that your vote counted as Null that night.
The Shield could maybe be confirmed, but only then if it actually blocked an attack, and only then through the flavour text of the narration. Few narrations are as reflective of real events and detailed as mine.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
The thread is 92 pages, is there a way to search just this thread for just my posts?
The Search function has an Advanced Mode, where you can specify body text and poster.
LaOs on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Oh joy. Drama.
Comments that cause drama should be taken to PMs. Period.
I agree with that. EDIT: That = network running method.
Also re: Frosteey
Ok, enlighten me as to why I'm a moron for thinking that in the early game, maximizing the kills from the random flailing about that is the village vote for the first day certainly and frequently the second day as well, presuming no egregious errors from the baddies, is a good thing.
I totally understand how it was good in the late game for Thetheroo and friends to kill as many people on their suspect list as possible, but without a suspect list, I don't see the point. Sure it decreases uncertainty slightly, but at the loss of 1) potential sources for ideas and 2) since I'm less concerned with winning, and more with people having a good time, fucks someone over in that regard too. The risk doesn't seem worth the reward when there aren't good cases to be made against people, whether because they're not in the network, or suspicious behavior, or a seering or whatever. Explain your reasoning, because if there's something I've overlooked, I'd like to hear it.
Using the Tied Vote is quite advantageous for the Village in the Early game because the Village is usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the number of kills that are under "Good" control. Also, trying to force a tie and then watching the reactions of the players and how they act (do they try to break it?) provides more key information than simply watching a regular vote.
Also, anything that isn't a runaway bandwagon is in the interst of the Village because there is not one easy place for the Baddies to hide.
Also, by killing two suspects that crop up in one day, you solve the issue once and for all, and aren't set on a chasing scheme trying to catch up to your suspects from the day before while the Baddies pick you off at their leisure.
For example, if on Day 2, LaOs and James are seen as suspicious but nothing comes out for one or the other, and we just use the vote, but aren't sure if LaOs or James is evil, we usually agree to vote LaOs and wait for that result, and then if he's innocent, go after James on Day 3. There have been times where, on Day 3, another suspect will come up and it's a choice between James and this other person. Well, we go with the other person because we already suspect James and say we'll get James on Day 4. Things like this can (and have) cropped up and you end up spending multiple days chasing a Days-old suspect (who often wasn't even that strongly suspected anyway) and exhausing your resources and investigative energies on solving that issue instead of dealing with the issues of the Day. The tied vote takes both targets out (if that's what the Tie does in that particular game--it doesn't always!) and allows you to focus on the present when you get to Day 3.
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
The thread is 92 pages, is there a way to search just this thread for just my posts?
The Search function has an Advanced Mode, where you can specify body text and poster.
Also: On the D&D theadlist page, you can click the link in the "Number of Replies" column, which will bring up a list of everyone who's posted in the thread and the number of posts they've made. Find your name in the list, and click the Number link (not the Name link), and it'll give you a list of your posts from newest to oldest in this thread specifically.
The tie vote I pulled was risky as hell, if I hadn't taken out a baddie the game would have been over then. Fortunately, I took out Speedy and validated my suspect list at the same time.
And I doubt you would have been able to pull some vote shenanigans at the last minute, I had several people watching the vote to make sure that didn't happen.
The tie vote I pulled was risky as hell, if I hadn't taken out a baddie the game would have been over then. Fortunately, I took out Speedy and validated my suspect list at the same time.
And I doubt you would have been able to pull some vote shenanigans at the last minute, I had several people watching the vote to make sure that didn't happen.
Last minute meaning last minute... reaction time may not have been fast enough, and once the Notification was up, that was that... it could have worked... but they also could have picked the unguarded targets the nights before and not have been in that situation :P
LaOs on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
The tie vote I pulled was risky as hell, if I hadn't taken out a baddie the game would have been over then. Fortunately, I took out Speedy and validated my suspect list at the same time.
And I doubt you would have been able to pull some vote shenanigans at the last minute, I had several people watching the vote to make sure that didn't happen.
Some people are very good at last minute vote shenanigans. When we say last minute, we mean "sometime within the last minute of the day". In the past, I have, in fact, refreshed the page over and over again to catch exactly when the minute ticks over so I could synchronize my watch to it, and then made a vote literally 10 seconds before the vote closed.
That being said, I do want to commend you on your handling of the network. If we were still doing the phalla awards, I'd nominate you for "Most Veteran Play by a New Player", because you were the major contributor to the village's victory in this game.
Which means I hate you.
Also, I really liked the narrations, LaOs. Although I'll admit to liking them better when the Twins were winning. :P
Hi I'm Vee! on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Also, will someone please tell me what I was doing that was so suspicious?
The whole addition of the qualifier "could call their kill/item action" didn't really seem to appear in the original argument, or at the very least, was not clear.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
I absolutely see what you guys are saying, and agree to an extent. However, the alternative, giving the bad guys items, is far more game breaking. In addition, the monkey is very clear his item is for you to use alone, so no trading I believe, and also, you guys are getting a 4 seering a day from what exactly? The arrow, yes, that is confirmable, but the only reason I was able to confirm that I had the powder yesterday was due to luck since the votes were less than 2 apart. In the future, it will take a great deal of coordination to create such circumstances, the item has lost some of its power now that its known. Also, the trap item LewieP's Mum claimed is hard to confirm, because you can't do it before vote close, or the evils will change their target, and if you announce it after close you have to pray someone fell for it, which is a slim chance with the current number of players. As for seering or guardian items, they are even harder to confirm.
All evidence I've seen points to item only being distributed to villagers, because they aren't auto-confirm of villagers, except for the arrow and the powder/trap if the person gets lucky. In addition, the alternative of bad guys having access to them as well is too broken to even consider. When the game is down to 6 players, what happens if two mafia members get the powder and arrow? Thats not to farfetched and totally unfair for the village.
Edit: As far as I'm concerned, Dasuberedward and I are to only 2 confirmed villagers. If you have any item let Dasuberedward know. If you have the arrow, please announce it after vote close/before narration end. If you have the rumored trap, announce it the same and maybe you will get lucky. If we can engineer a close vote tonight and you have the powder, use it and announce it, maybe you will get lucky, the downside of course being some crafty evil engineering a tie. If you have the shield put it on Dasuber or myself. I'm going to sleep, will see what happens later tonight.
I used my item because the monkey said I couldn't save it and there would be consequences if I didn't use it. I swung the vote from durax to fuzzy in order to prove I had the item, not for any disrespect of the villages voice or favorism over one or the other. If it had been Fuzzy 1 vote over durax I would have used the powder as well. I hadn't thought of comparing pms in order to validate item holders because its banned in the op and is frankly unsporting. It would seem some of us have a simple difference of opinion on the validity of items falling in evil people's hands. You guys seem to think its gamebreaking for the village to only receive them but don't think its gamebreaking for the evil players to receive them. I can't say anything to that except I disagree.
I half-expect to be voted out tonight since I am acting like a dick, but fucking think before that happens.
They believe that an instant and invincible mason group of at least 6 people is around at all times. Those 6 double in size each day.
By day 2, the badguys (who have 2 kills) would have to kill each one for 5 days to get rid of them.
By that time, however, there would be 30 masons.
It's...it's like you can't read.
Not to mention Frosteey, who gained his role multiple days into the game. Which means any role can become static at any time. So your whole "but with less people means the badguys have an even higher chance of getting an item" tangent is BS, because that can be countered by giving a villager a static vigilante role and removing the item from play.
It's basic game balancing. Which enither DUE, nor Ulta has done.
I pointed out something that was important to me and I said I would stop using it forever to show that I know what I am talking about.
I wouldn't do it unless I was absolutely sure.
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
I agree with that. EDIT: That = network running method.
Also re: Frosteey
Ok, enlighten me as to why I'm a moron for thinking that in the early game, maximizing the kills from the random flailing about that is the village vote for the first day certainly and frequently the second day as well, presuming no egregious errors from the baddies, is a good thing.
I totally understand how it was good in the late game for Thetheroo and friends to kill as many people on their suspect list as possible, but without a suspect list, I don't see the point. Sure it decreases uncertainty slightly, but at the loss of 1) potential sources for ideas and 2) since I'm less concerned with winning, and more with people having a good time, fucks someone over in that regard too. The risk doesn't seem worth the reward when there aren't good cases to be made against people, whether because they're not in the network, or suspicious behavior, or a seering or whatever. Explain your reasoning, because if there's something I've overlooked, I'd like to hear it.
Using the Tied Vote is quite advantageous for the Village in the Early game because the Village is usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the number of kills that are under "Good" control. Also, trying to force a tie and then watching the reactions of the players and how they act (do they try to break it?) provides more key information than simply watching a regular vote.
Also, anything that isn't a runaway bandwagon is in the interst of the Village because there is not one easy place for the Baddies to hide.
Also, by killing two suspects that crop up in one day, you solve the issue once and for all, and aren't set on a chasing scheme trying to catch up to your suspects from the day before while the Baddies pick you off at their leisure.
For example, if on Day 2, LaOs and James are seen as suspicious but nothing comes out for one or the other, and we just use the vote, but aren't sure if LaOs or James is evil, we usually agree to vote LaOs and wait for that result, and then if he's innocent, go after James on Day 3. There have been times where, on Day 3, another suspect will come up and it's a choice between James and this other person. Well, we go with the other person because we already suspect James and say we'll get James on Day 4. Things like this can (and have) cropped up and you end up spending multiple days chasing a Days-old suspect (who often wasn't even that strongly suspected anyway) and exhausing your resources and investigative energies on solving that issue instead of dealing with the issues of the Day. The tied vote takes both targets out (if that's what the Tie does in that particular game--it doesn't always!) and allows you to focus on the present when you get to Day 3.
So because people are obstinate and dumb? For me, both cases on night two sucked, and I didn't really want to vote for either of them and wouldn't have pursued either had I survived to day three. My fundamental problem with the idea is that at that point no one was really a suspect. So the likelihood was we were risking two villager deaths for no gain in information, besides the behavior of people in trying to tie/untie the vote. Which in our case besides Frosteey who tried to tie it led to very little, and now I'm being told I'm dumb for thinking he was evil because of trying to tie it. I am very confused. I'd think the village ideal the first two nights is a very small difference in the voting, but an actual leader.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
1) PMs
2) People resort to personal attacks in D&D all the time. It's cool as long as they're making an actual argument along with it.
3) Now you've got me doing it, take this to PMs, goddammit!
So because people are obstinate and dumb? For me, both cases on night two sucked, and I didn't really want to vote for either of them and wouldn't have pursued either had I survived to day three. My fundamental problem with the idea is that at that point no one was really a suspect. So the likelihood was we were risking two villager deaths for no gain in information, besides the behavior of people in trying to tie/untie the vote. Which in our case besides Frosteey who tried to tie it led to very little, and now I'm being told I'm dumb for thinking he was evil because of trying to tie it. I am very confused. I'd think the village ideal the first two nights is a very small difference in the voting, but an actual leader.
Frosteey calls everybody dumb. It's his "thing".
In general, the concept is that the more kills the village gets the better, because the % chance that we'll hit a bad guy is non-zero, whereas (usually) the % chance that the bad guys will hit a bad guy is 0. This is the argument used against people who want to not vote at all (which is silly), but somewhat applies to the tie vote conundrum as well.
Personally, I think you're right, it's better off left to later days when we have more actual information. But yeah, don't take Frosteey personally, because he pretty much includes insults in every post. It's kind of endearing, once you stop taking him seriously. :P
I think he and I also disagreed because I hate inactives in these games, so thought I'd make a partial honest post and partial leading one to see if I could glean anything out of it by posting within like, 16 hours of the game starting that we should start purging inactives. And we had an argument about that.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
1) PMs
2) People resort to personal attacks in D&D all the time. It's cool as long as they're making an actual argument along with it.
3) Now you've got me doing it, take this to PMs, goddammit!
I was reading the rules thread, and while what he was doing isn't strictly against the rules, it is frowned upon. I'm not going to send a pm because I don't care what he says to me personally. I don't think he should argue using the logical fallacies he did, but you are correct, it is his right to do so.
I agree with that. EDIT: That = network running method.
Also re: Frosteey
Ok, enlighten me as to why I'm a moron for thinking that in the early game, maximizing the kills from the random flailing about that is the village vote for the first day certainly and frequently the second day as well, presuming no egregious errors from the baddies, is a good thing.
I totally understand how it was good in the late game for Thetheroo and friends to kill as many people on their suspect list as possible, but without a suspect list, I don't see the point. Sure it decreases uncertainty slightly, but at the loss of 1) potential sources for ideas and 2) since I'm less concerned with winning, and more with people having a good time, fucks someone over in that regard too. The risk doesn't seem worth the reward when there aren't good cases to be made against people, whether because they're not in the network, or suspicious behavior, or a seering or whatever. Explain your reasoning, because if there's something I've overlooked, I'd like to hear it.
Using the Tied Vote is quite advantageous for the Village in the Early game because the Village is usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the number of kills that are under "Good" control. Also, trying to force a tie and then watching the reactions of the players and how they act (do they try to break it?) provides more key information than simply watching a regular vote.
Also, anything that isn't a runaway bandwagon is in the interst of the Village because there is not one easy place for the Baddies to hide.
Also, by killing two suspects that crop up in one day, you solve the issue once and for all, and aren't set on a chasing scheme trying to catch up to your suspects from the day before while the Baddies pick you off at their leisure.
For example, if on Day 2, LaOs and James are seen as suspicious but nothing comes out for one or the other, and we just use the vote, but aren't sure if LaOs or James is evil, we usually agree to vote LaOs and wait for that result, and then if he's innocent, go after James on Day 3. There have been times where, on Day 3, another suspect will come up and it's a choice between James and this other person. Well, we go with the other person because we already suspect James and say we'll get James on Day 4. Things like this can (and have) cropped up and you end up spending multiple days chasing a Days-old suspect (who often wasn't even that strongly suspected anyway) and exhausing your resources and investigative energies on solving that issue instead of dealing with the issues of the Day. The tied vote takes both targets out (if that's what the Tie does in that particular game--it doesn't always!) and allows you to focus on the present when you get to Day 3.
So because people are obstinate and dumb? For me, both cases on night two sucked, and I didn't really want to vote for either of them and wouldn't have pursued either had I survived to day three. My fundamental problem with the idea is that at that point no one was really a suspect. So the likelihood was we were risking two villager deaths for no gain in information, besides the behavior of people in trying to tie/untie the vote. Which in our case besides Frosteey who tried to tie it led to very little, and now I'm being told I'm dumb for thinking he was evil because of trying to tie it. I am very confused. I'd think the village ideal the first two nights is a very small difference in the voting, but an actual leader.
People call people dumb all the time in Phalla. It's best to ignore it.
I mean, you can think what you want, and I will think what I want, and I may be a more aggressive player than you, but I would rather solve the question about as many players as possible in as difinitive a way as possible so that we can focus on anything new that pops up without getting bogged down in past problems. Also, the Village is going to do most of the slaying of Villagers in any given game, until the roster gets down to the point where it's more statistically likely they'll hit a Baddie... getting there as quickly as possible, in an effort to make Village kills more efficient, seems like a viable strategy. Especially when there are so few "knowns" such as a consistent Vig kill or even a Seer to verify people. A lot of this, though, is game and situationally-dependent.
Also, will someone please tell me what I was doing that was so suspicious?
I'd like to know too, besides voting for Richy the night Elki got offed, I didn't really have you pegged as suspicious. And I had extra information and was dead, so that hardly matters. So you fooled someone. :P
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
1) PMs
2) People resort to personal attacks in D&D all the time. It's cool as long as they're making an actual argument along with it.
3) Now you've got me doing it, take this to PMs, goddammit!
I was reading the rules thread, and while what he was doing isn't strictly against the rules, it is frowned upon. I'm not going to send a pm because I don't care what he says to me personally. I don't think he should argue using the logical fallacies he did, but you are correct, it is his right to do so.
You're expressing an opinion about his behavior that is specific to TehSpectre. There is no reason to discuss that publically, except to call him out in front of other people. Any concerns you have about what he said or did can be just as easily addressed via PMs; there is no advantage to airing them out in a public thread, except the satisfaction of calling him out in public.
I'm mildly forgiving of this, considering I've done it myself a few times, but I've almost always realized my mistake and apologized via PM. Because frankly, it's nobody's business but mine and the person's with whom I have the issue.
If you're done with this argument, fine. But if you have concerns that you feel still haven't been addressed, I would like to respectfully ask that you continue that discussion via PMs with TehSpectre.
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
1) PMs
2) People resort to personal attacks in D&D all the time. It's cool as long as they're making an actual argument along with it.
3) Now you've got me doing it, take this to PMs, goddammit!
I was reading the rules thread, and while what he was doing isn't strictly against the rules, it is frowned upon. I'm not going to send a pm because I don't care what he says to me personally. I don't think he should argue using the logical fallacies he did, but you are correct, it is his right to do so.
Another thing you should remember is that while this game is in D&D, it is not a D&D thread, per se. It's here because this community wants to and enjoys playing the game, but it's not really a debate or discussion, so while the thread does need to adhere to the rules of the subforum, you're not going to get the same behaviour within the game. Especially during the game, when people need to act certain ways to cause certain reactions. And, because it may be impossible to determine why someone is acting the way they are while the game is playing, expecting the unspoken rules/softer rules to be enforced as much or as "well" as in, say, the Customer's Always Right thread, is not really correct.
Anyway, as for your argument, I guess I'll apologise, because I did not read your argument as how you have explained it to be, and I did miss those two posts that apparently clarified things.
Posts
While I'm specifically mentioning Teh Spectre in my post, I've seen that kind of behavior in others and wanted to air my views on it publically. While this was a phalla, I assume we are still operating under the Debate and Discourse rules of conduct.
Like I've said before, my issue was with the way he pursued his argument, not the argument itself. However, to descend back into the debate we were having, my argument was that villagers who could confirm their items in the narration were innocent, not just accurately answer questions about the items pm. While giving the baddies access to item descriptions mitigated the 6 seering a day he was worried about, the act of confirming a villager by having them call an arrow kill or vote change was all I was putting forth, so by arguing against that he wasn't coming across very well.
Some of us clearly didn't think it was silly, because we thought it was the only logical way to have the game balanced. I'm pretty proud of that deduction that we made, and it turned out entirely accurate. While items may not have been RNGed, and bad guys may have had access to item descriptions, neither of those points had any bearing on the theory we put forth; that bad guys couldn't receive items, only villagers could receive items, and that any person who could call their items effect in the narration was innocent.
The argument ad hominem in attacking us, not our theory, strawmanning our theory, being meta with your arguing from supposed authority, etc. etc. This is the Debate and Discourse forum so I was frankly expecting better. You keep qualifying your actions, but the simple fact is that bad guys couldn't get items and only villagers could. You weren't hurting my feelings, I am just concerned with how you went about making your arguments. Even after the game and Laos' reveal of game mechanics, we still seem to disagree on what happened, but once you ran out of ways to argue against the theory, you should have simply said that you agree to disagree, not resorted to personal attacks. We should try to make these games fun and welcoming, and what would have happened if this was my first time playing? The newbie might have backed down, but if they stuck to their guns like I did, all they would have been rewarded with was abuse from a self-proclaimed phalla balancing expert. Even if they saw that they were in fact right at the end of the game, would they really want to stick around to play other games if the reaction to their theories is abuse and personal attacks? I didn't pm you because you aren't the only person guilty of this. I see this alot and I wanted to say my peace about it. Everyone says they want to get new blood into the game, and dismiss the accusations of cliqueness, but people actually need to make these games welcoming and something new players want to come back to.
Because that changes the whole situation that I was commenting on, and I wouldn't have had anything to comment on.
[Edit]
Now, it may be that when you were saying that you believed that anyone who received an item was verified as innocent you really meant that anyone who received an item and called the results of using that item was verified as innocent, but I don't think you actually said the second part... at least, not until later in the swing of the discussions, maybe even after it was hypothesised that only a subset of Villagers could get items. If you did actually say that, then I apologise for missing it, because if you had said that, the basis for my comments would not exist, and I wouldn't have said anything.
Also re: Frosteey
Ok, enlighten me as to why I'm a moron for thinking that in the early game, maximizing the kills from the random flailing about that is the village vote for the first day certainly and frequently the second day as well, presuming no egregious errors from the baddies, is a good thing.
I totally understand how it was good in the late game for Thetheroo and friends to kill as many people on their suspect list as possible, but without a suspect list, I don't see the point. Sure it decreases uncertainty slightly, but at the loss of 1) potential sources for ideas and 2) since I'm less concerned with winning, and more with people having a good time, fucks someone over in that regard too. The risk doesn't seem worth the reward when there aren't good cases to be made against people, whether because they're not in the network, or suspicious behavior, or a seering or whatever. Explain your reasoning, because if there's something I've overlooked, I'd like to hear it.
You're being surprisingly bitter and whiny when everyone else seems to be doing alright.
I was clear about it, in fact, in perhaps a sign of my naivety, I assumed no one would compare their item pms because I thought that was against the rules and unsporting. After having my view corrected, I said that it still didn't matter, because the only way to be SURE was if the person could call their items effect in the narration.
So you only treat other phalla players the poorly? Good? Also, how can you say I should have known better? It turns out I did know better! As for your bitter/whiny comment, eh, whatever, if you want to continue to act this way their is nothing I can do stop you, I just expect better and am disappointed.
If you could please quote the post(s) where you actually were clear about it, that would be great. I seem to have missed it.
Also the powder. In addition, the shield could be claimed, and while there was a low chance of it being confirmed, it did exist.
The thread is 92 pages, is there a way to search just this thread for just my posts?
DUE and I aren't on bad terms, we don't hate eachother.
Evilbob and I are showing no problems.
Fuck, I commend Thetheroo on rocking a decent goodguy network even though he was a new player.
You took my actions as though I was trying to make you feel bad about yourself, whereas it wasn't like that at all. I say it again that if you had a problem with how I acted towards you, you needed to tell me in PMs, not try to "call me out" after the game ended.
It's petty.
The powder couldn't be absolutely confirmed (thus, confirmed) because there were many other issues that could affect the vote in slight ways.
Using the Arrow made every vote against you (the Arrow user) count for two instead of one. Not using the Powder made your vote null. Using the Powder but only on one person made your vote count as one against you. Both Brothers had votes that counted double. The Lantern made it so that your vote counted as Null that night.
The Shield could maybe be confirmed, but only then if it actually blocked an attack, and only then through the flavour text of the narration. Few narrations are as reflective of real events and detailed as mine.
The Search function has an Advanced Mode, where you can specify body text and poster.
Comments that cause drama should be taken to PMs. Period.
Drama has no place in the phallaverse as far as I am considered. Ulta, if you have a problem with me I would be happy to talk about it in PMs.
Edit: VH knows what's up.
Using the Tied Vote is quite advantageous for the Village in the Early game because the Village is usually at a disadvantage when it comes to the number of kills that are under "Good" control. Also, trying to force a tie and then watching the reactions of the players and how they act (do they try to break it?) provides more key information than simply watching a regular vote.
Also, anything that isn't a runaway bandwagon is in the interst of the Village because there is not one easy place for the Baddies to hide.
Also, by killing two suspects that crop up in one day, you solve the issue once and for all, and aren't set on a chasing scheme trying to catch up to your suspects from the day before while the Baddies pick you off at their leisure.
For example, if on Day 2, LaOs and James are seen as suspicious but nothing comes out for one or the other, and we just use the vote, but aren't sure if LaOs or James is evil, we usually agree to vote LaOs and wait for that result, and then if he's innocent, go after James on Day 3. There have been times where, on Day 3, another suspect will come up and it's a choice between James and this other person. Well, we go with the other person because we already suspect James and say we'll get James on Day 4. Things like this can (and have) cropped up and you end up spending multiple days chasing a Days-old suspect (who often wasn't even that strongly suspected anyway) and exhausing your resources and investigative energies on solving that issue instead of dealing with the issues of the Day. The tied vote takes both targets out (if that's what the Tie does in that particular game--it doesn't always!) and allows you to focus on the present when you get to Day 3.
Also: On the D&D theadlist page, you can click the link in the "Number of Replies" column, which will bring up a list of everyone who's posted in the thread and the number of posts they've made. Find your name in the list, and click the Number link (not the Name link), and it'll give you a list of your posts from newest to oldest in this thread specifically.
And I doubt you would have been able to pull some vote shenanigans at the last minute, I had several people watching the vote to make sure that didn't happen.
[Edit]
Fucking TotP. hah.
?
Last minute meaning last minute... reaction time may not have been fast enough, and once the Notification was up, that was that... it could have worked... but they also could have picked the unguarded targets the nights before and not have been in that situation :P
Some people are very good at last minute vote shenanigans. When we say last minute, we mean "sometime within the last minute of the day". In the past, I have, in fact, refreshed the page over and over again to catch exactly when the minute ticks over so I could synchronize my watch to it, and then made a vote literally 10 seconds before the vote closed.
That being said, I do want to commend you on your handling of the network. If we were still doing the phalla awards, I'd nominate you for "Most Veteran Play by a New Player", because you were the major contributor to the village's victory in this game.
Which means I hate you.
Also, I really liked the narrations, LaOs. Although I'll admit to liking them better when the Twins were winning. :P
As for Teh Spectre
If you can read all of that and believe that was the attitude to take to get your point across, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I don't hate you Teh Spectre, I just wish you didn't resort to personal attacks.
So because people are obstinate and dumb? For me, both cases on night two sucked, and I didn't really want to vote for either of them and wouldn't have pursued either had I survived to day three. My fundamental problem with the idea is that at that point no one was really a suspect. So the likelihood was we were risking two villager deaths for no gain in information, besides the behavior of people in trying to tie/untie the vote. Which in our case besides Frosteey who tried to tie it led to very little, and now I'm being told I'm dumb for thinking he was evil because of trying to tie it. I am very confused. I'd think the village ideal the first two nights is a very small difference in the voting, but an actual leader.
1) PMs
2) People resort to personal attacks in D&D all the time. It's cool as long as they're making an actual argument along with it.
3) Now you've got me doing it, take this to PMs, goddammit!
Most people don't like tied votes.
Frosteey calls everybody dumb. It's his "thing".
In general, the concept is that the more kills the village gets the better, because the % chance that we'll hit a bad guy is non-zero, whereas (usually) the % chance that the bad guys will hit a bad guy is 0. This is the argument used against people who want to not vote at all (which is silly), but somewhat applies to the tie vote conundrum as well.
Personally, I think you're right, it's better off left to later days when we have more actual information. But yeah, don't take Frosteey personally, because he pretty much includes insults in every post. It's kind of endearing, once you stop taking him seriously. :P
I was reading the rules thread, and while what he was doing isn't strictly against the rules, it is frowned upon. I'm not going to send a pm because I don't care what he says to me personally. I don't think he should argue using the logical fallacies he did, but you are correct, it is his right to do so.
People call people dumb all the time in Phalla. It's best to ignore it.
I mean, you can think what you want, and I will think what I want, and I may be a more aggressive player than you, but I would rather solve the question about as many players as possible in as difinitive a way as possible so that we can focus on anything new that pops up without getting bogged down in past problems. Also, the Village is going to do most of the slaying of Villagers in any given game, until the roster gets down to the point where it's more statistically likely they'll hit a Baddie... getting there as quickly as possible, in an effort to make Village kills more efficient, seems like a viable strategy. Especially when there are so few "knowns" such as a consistent Vig kill or even a Seer to verify people. A lot of this, though, is game and situationally-dependent.
I'll check my spreadsheets and see what notes I made about you, but mostly you just seemed off to me. How did I off you again?
I'd like to know too, besides voting for Richy the night Elki got offed, I didn't really have you pegged as suspicious. And I had extra information and was dead, so that hardly matters. So you fooled someone. :P
You're expressing an opinion about his behavior that is specific to TehSpectre. There is no reason to discuss that publically, except to call him out in front of other people. Any concerns you have about what he said or did can be just as easily addressed via PMs; there is no advantage to airing them out in a public thread, except the satisfaction of calling him out in public.
I'm mildly forgiving of this, considering I've done it myself a few times, but I've almost always realized my mistake and apologized via PM. Because frankly, it's nobody's business but mine and the person's with whom I have the issue.
If you're done with this argument, fine. But if you have concerns that you feel still haven't been addressed, I would like to respectfully ask that you continue that discussion via PMs with TehSpectre.
Another thing you should remember is that while this game is in D&D, it is not a D&D thread, per se. It's here because this community wants to and enjoys playing the game, but it's not really a debate or discussion, so while the thread does need to adhere to the rules of the subforum, you're not going to get the same behaviour within the game. Especially during the game, when people need to act certain ways to cause certain reactions. And, because it may be impossible to determine why someone is acting the way they are while the game is playing, expecting the unspoken rules/softer rules to be enforced as much or as "well" as in, say, the Customer's Always Right thread, is not really correct.
Anyway, as for your argument, I guess I'll apologise, because I did not read your argument as how you have explained it to be, and I did miss those two posts that apparently clarified things.