Anyway, in other news, do any of the people currently around have any opinions on intentionally tying the #1 Vote spot? There's been discussion of the idea throughout today that's probably worth reviewing and commenting on.
There are way too many mafia about for that to work, and if we get a mafia in the top spot then they can just change their vote to whatever as needed to screw the whole thing up. In that case they are dying anyways, too much room for shenanigans.
You could do something like a last minute second place tie and have the vig engineer a vote trickle down, but that is a delicate matter too. The mafia has an easier time of it because they are all masoned together, have multiple kills and are quite happy with a whole lot of collateral damage.
Savant on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Yeah, something got messed up in the networking. Knowing some of who was involved may help us sniff out suspects, though.
(Just want to be careful about revealing too much information and costing us our remaining Specials.)
Well if the mafia compromised that soft network, then they knew more about it than me or most of the village, and cass is dead so there's not much need to really hide it. Of course, if thomas or elldren had mentioned this to me privately earlier instead of blabbing about it in the thread after it is too late I could have kept it on the down low, but too late for that!
I was under the impression that Cass told you about us, and since I have no other information and even asked you specifically if I should contact you and you said, basically, no, I'm not going to take the blame here.
Yeah, something got messed up in the networking. Knowing some of who was involved may help us sniff out suspects, though.
(Just want to be careful about revealing too much information and costing us our remaining Specials.)
Well if the mafia compromised that soft network, then they knew more about it than me or most of the village, and cass is dead so there's not much need to really hide it. Of course, if thomas or elldren had mentioned this to me privately earlier instead of blabbing about it in the thread after it is too late I could have kept it on the down low, but too late for that!
I was under the impression that Cass told you about us, and since I have no other information and even asked you specifically if I should contact you and you said, basically, no, I'm not going to take the blame here.
I said to contact me if you had any useful information, but not just if you were a villager with nothing else to say. Soft networking with a special? That's useful information.
I can't read people's minds, as useful as such an ability would be for phalla. That would save a whole lot of trouble.
Savant on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Yeah, something got messed up in the networking. Knowing some of who was involved may help us sniff out suspects, though.
(Just want to be careful about revealing too much information and costing us our remaining Specials.)
Well if the mafia compromised that soft network, then they knew more about it than me or most of the village, and cass is dead so there's not much need to really hide it. Of course, if thomas or elldren had mentioned this to me privately earlier instead of blabbing about it in the thread after it is too late I could have kept it on the down low, but too late for that!
I was under the impression that Cass told you about us, and since I have no other information and even asked you specifically if I should contact you and you said, basically, no, I'm not going to take the blame here.
I said to contact me if you had any useful information, but not just if you were a villager with nothing else to say. Soft networking with a special? That's useful information.
I can't read people's minds, as useful as such an ability would be for phalla. That would save a whole lot of trouble.
Again, I was under the impression that Cass told you about her soft network.
Anyway, in other news, do any of the people currently around have any opinions on intentionally tying the #1 Vote spot? There's been discussion of the idea throughout today that's probably worth reviewing and commenting on.
There are way too many mafia about for that to work, and if we get a mafia in the top spot then they can just change their vote to whatever as needed to screw the whole thing up. In that case they are dying anyways, too much room for shenanigans.
You could do something like a last minute second place tie and have the vig engineer a vote trickle down, but that is a delicate matter too. The mafia has an easier time of it because they are all masoned together, have multiple kills and are quite happy with a whole lot of collateral damage.
If a Mafia were to last-minute change a vote to "screw the whole thing up", they'd out themselves as incredibly suspicious and do nothing to harm us--we wanted both of those people dead anyway. If we kill one, we kill one we wanted dead and get an incredibly suspicious target, or we kill two that we wanted dead anyway.
There is no real danger to having a Mafia "screw up" the tied vote plan.
If we don't have any ties in 2nd through to 4th, there's no way the Mafia can use the trickle-down effect of the vote to hurt us.
Forcing the Mafia's hand is actually good for us. The longer they can hide amongst the barely-actives, the worse for us it gets.
LaOs on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
People I have been suspicious of and mentioned to Cass:
LonelyAhava
Zandracon
I actually talked her out of vigging you night 2, Spec.
People I have been suspicious of and mentioned to Cass:
LonelyAhava
Zandracon
I actually talked her out of vigging you night 2, Spec.
lol! Vig'ing Spectre Night 2 wouldn't have been a bad idea.
[Edit]
As he points out above. :P
LaOs on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
Whatever
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited July 2011
So wait. If Elldren, Thom and Cass had a soft network. Then Cass died and was a vig - shouldn't there be some reasonable suspicion cast against Elldren and Thom?
So I plan to check back before vote close, but I'm not going to be reading this thread too closely for most of the day because my copy of Dance with Dragons just showed up
for now, though, I have to say that I really don't trust Elldren. I've had a bad feeling about her all game. I don't really have anything concrete, just a hunch from her posting style, but I've learned to trust my hunches.
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
I'm going to stick with the Farangu vote for all the reasons I mentioned yesterday.
Also, if there was a soft network with the now-dead specials, and they are now dead, that implies that somebody in that network is a mafia. Two specials died. That doesn't usually happen because of chance.
So wait. If Elldren, Thom and Cass had a soft network. Then Cass died and was a vig - shouldn't there be some reasonable suspicion cast against Elldren and Thom?
Good old Honk--always count on you to know what's going on.
..wait, no. lol!
That's basically what's happening right this very minute. :P
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
LaOs on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
I'm not thinking so much of "last minute" vote shenanigans, so I probably used bad terminology there, but more along the lines of misdirection throughout the day to ensure that two villagers end up being voted for consistently.
It sort of works like this.... I think?
Let's say everyone is voting for player A, but I think player X is suspicious, and player B is slightly suspicious.
If there is a runaway bandwagon on A, I might go ahead and place my vote on X because I might as well get my suspicions out there, right?
But if there are dual bandwagons on A and B, I am more likely to support a B bandwagon due to my slight suspicions.
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
It's not just vote tying that is making people nervous, it the vote trickling down to unintended victims.
That being said, I was wrong last night, so I am going to sheep it up today and vote for lemminghead
LaOs, say a late poster comes in and screws everything up by accident and we murder him the next day and he was just a villager?
It would be a waste of time and energy and then we would want to kill the person who was originally in the tie and blah blah blah
It's a mess
It's no more of a mess than what we have now.
Plus, I believe that we would be able to work out whether or not it was a deliberate attempt to mess up the tie or an accident.
Also, it's not like we suddenly just ignore why other people were suspicious (especially the survivor of our intentional tie). Breaking the tie last-minute should definitely draw some scrutiny, but it doesn't have to be the end-all resulting in us completely forgetting why we wanted to kill the survivor the night before.
And if it works, we take out two people that we believed suspicious enough to have at the top of the votes.
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
I'm not thinking so much of "last minute" vote shenanigans, so I probably used bad terminology there, but more along the lines of misdirection throughout the day to ensure that two villagers end up being voted for consistently.
It sort of works like this.... I think?
Let's say everyone is voting for player A, but I think player X is suspicious, and player B is slightly suspicious.
If there is a runaway bandwagon on A, I might go ahead and place my vote on X because I might as well get my suspicions out there, right?
But if there are dual bandwagons on A and B, I am more likely to support a B bandwagon due to my slight suspicions.
I don't think that your desire to follow support on your light suspicions VS voice your stronger suspicions is a flaw of anything but your chosen playstyle. If you suspect someone, regardless of what bandwagons are going on, you should voice your thoughts!
Day 2 there was a strong secondary bandwagon on TehSpectre but I (and others) voiced my suspicions of JaysonFour and things happened. It didn't change that day's actions, but it got people thinking about and talking about my suspicions. That's much better than simply going along to get along. There's always the chance to get your ideas heard and maybe convince a few minds.
But seriously, there's no more risk to the Village than there is doing what we've been doing. We're not even increasing the number of kills that the Village directs, since killing one extra person with a Tie simply replaces our lost Vigilante kill.
I am usually a proponent of voting for inactives, even though I ain't usually the active sort myself. So, I'll go ahead and vote for MyDcmbr.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
It's not just vote tying that is making people nervous, it the vote trickling down to unintended victims.
That being said, I was wrong last night, so I am going to sheep it up today and vote for lemminghead
There is no danger of vote trickling if we actually pay attention to the 2nd-4th place vote-earners (like we have been doing since the disaster of Day 1).
LaOs on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited July 2011
What if everyone votes for the person to the left? Do we all die?
I don't think that your desire to follow support on your light suspicions VS voice your stronger suspicions is a flaw of anything but your chosen playstyle. If you suspect someone, regardless of what bandwagons are going on, you should voice your thoughts!
Day 2 there was a strong secondary bandwagon on TehSpectre but I (and others) voiced my suspicions of JaysonFour and things happened. It didn't change that day's actions, but it got people thinking about and talking about my suspicions. That's much better than simply going along to get along. There's always the chance to get your ideas heard and maybe convince a few minds.
Agreed, but I'm not talking about a conscious thought process so much as a common enough form of intuitive reasoning that mafia can easily manipulate to create some early bandwagons. It's not particularly difficult for a mafioso to misdirect some votes off of a fellow member, and even less so if there's multiple bandwagons forming at the same time.
At any rate, yeah, I don't think it's a feasible idea and I'm not eager to try it, especially in a game the size.
Aaand at this point I think I feel like MyDcmbr is a worse vote than Elldren
That would all depend on who we find the most suspicious.
Right now we've got:
[Edit-as of Post #1078]
LemmingHead - 8
Elldren - 3
Farangu - 3
LaOs - 3
Fiaryn; spool32; Thomamelas - 1
26 out of 46 people have not voted yet today.
(inactivity does not seem to be punished in this game, also--6, 9, and 8 people didn't vote on Days 1, 2, and 3)
LaOs on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited July 2011
I missed the reasoning behind Lemminghead. I will though allow myself to go ahead with the assumption that the mafia knew what they were doing, rather than it being pure chance, when they offed Cass.
The reasoning behind Lemminghead will have to be pretty good to top that.
!Thomamelas, I choose you.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I missed the reasoning behind Lemminghead. I will though allow myself to go ahead with the assumption that the mafia knew what they were doing, rather than it being pure chance, when they offed Cass.
The reasoning behind Lemminghead will have to be pretty good to top that.
!Thomamelas, I choose you.
Fair enough. We might want to make sure Elldren and I stay tied.
Posts
There are way too many mafia about for that to work, and if we get a mafia in the top spot then they can just change their vote to whatever as needed to screw the whole thing up. In that case they are dying anyways, too much room for shenanigans.
You could do something like a last minute second place tie and have the vig engineer a vote trickle down, but that is a delicate matter too. The mafia has an easier time of it because they are all masoned together, have multiple kills and are quite happy with a whole lot of collateral damage.
I was under the impression that Cass told you about us, and since I have no other information and even asked you specifically if I should contact you and you said, basically, no, I'm not going to take the blame here.
!Thomamelas
I said to contact me if you had any useful information, but not just if you were a villager with nothing else to say. Soft networking with a special? That's useful information.
I can't read people's minds, as useful as such an ability would be for phalla. That would save a whole lot of trouble.
Again, I was under the impression that Cass told you about her soft network.
Obviously she didn't.
Was someone pushing you to vote for me? Elldren perhaps?
I also noticed that JaysonFour voted for Elldren at one point.
I would really hope the Vig takes a shot at Elldren tonight. She seems shady as hell after all this has come to light.
Random chance. Neither Elldren nor Cass attempted to influence my vote.
If a Mafia were to last-minute change a vote to "screw the whole thing up", they'd out themselves as incredibly suspicious and do nothing to harm us--we wanted both of those people dead anyway. If we kill one, we kill one we wanted dead and get an incredibly suspicious target, or we kill two that we wanted dead anyway.
There is no real danger to having a Mafia "screw up" the tied vote plan.
If we don't have any ties in 2nd through to 4th, there's no way the Mafia can use the trickle-down effect of the vote to hurt us.
Forcing the Mafia's hand is actually good for us. The longer they can hide amongst the barely-actives, the worse for us it gets.
LonelyAhava
Zandracon
I actually talked her out of vigging you night 2, Spec.
I still think the vote will be wasted on me soon enough.
Especially if I am wrong about LemmingHead
lol! Vig'ing Spectre Night 2 wouldn't have been a bad idea.
[Edit]
As he points out above. :P
I am afraid the vig wont listen to me about Lemminghead, but there is enough suspicion on Elldren that they will act...probably.
That's why I think the vote should stay on Lemming and the vig hits Elldren tonight.
for now, though, I have to say that I really don't trust Elldren. I've had a bad feeling about her all game. I don't really have anything concrete, just a hunch from her posting style, but I've learned to trust my hunches.
For the record, I think attempting to tie the vote might be interesting in that it will probably yield good voting records at some point, but I don't see it as being at all feasible, and I do see it as being far too susceptible to mafia shenanigans. To say nothing of the nights we would spend killing every single villager who comes in last minute and lays down a vote for whoever just to avoid inactivus.
Also, if there was a soft network with the now-dead specials, and they are now dead, that implies that somebody in that network is a mafia. Two specials died. That doesn't usually happen because of chance.
Good old Honk--always count on you to know what's going on.
..wait, no. lol!
That's basically what's happening right this very minute. :P
Yeah, that's kind of damning, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if one of them was the mole.
Votes all over the place.
Just what shenanigans are everyone afraid of here in this tied-vote situation?
Ignoring whether it's something that can be done, this fear of shenanigans keeps coming up as some vague problem with the intentionally-tied vote. What is it that is feared, exactly?
It would be a waste of time and energy and then we would want to kill the person who was originally in the tie and blah blah blah
It's a mess
I'm not thinking so much of "last minute" vote shenanigans, so I probably used bad terminology there, but more along the lines of misdirection throughout the day to ensure that two villagers end up being voted for consistently.
It sort of works like this.... I think?
If there is a runaway bandwagon on A, I might go ahead and place my vote on X because I might as well get my suspicions out there, right?
But if there are dual bandwagons on A and B, I am more likely to support a B bandwagon due to my slight suspicions.
It's not just vote tying that is making people nervous, it the vote trickling down to unintended victims.
That being said, I was wrong last night, so I am going to sheep it up today and vote for lemminghead
It's no more of a mess than what we have now.
Plus, I believe that we would be able to work out whether or not it was a deliberate attempt to mess up the tie or an accident.
Also, it's not like we suddenly just ignore why other people were suspicious (especially the survivor of our intentional tie). Breaking the tie last-minute should definitely draw some scrutiny, but it doesn't have to be the end-all resulting in us completely forgetting why we wanted to kill the survivor the night before.
And if it works, we take out two people that we believed suspicious enough to have at the top of the votes.
I don't think that your desire to follow support on your light suspicions VS voice your stronger suspicions is a flaw of anything but your chosen playstyle. If you suspect someone, regardless of what bandwagons are going on, you should voice your thoughts!
Day 2 there was a strong secondary bandwagon on TehSpectre but I (and others) voiced my suspicions of JaysonFour and things happened. It didn't change that day's actions, but it got people thinking about and talking about my suspicions. That's much better than simply going along to get along. There's always the chance to get your ideas heard and maybe convince a few minds.
I'm pretty sure you're just joking here :P
But seriously, there's no more risk to the Village than there is doing what we've been doing. We're not even increasing the number of kills that the Village directs, since killing one extra person with a Tie simply replaces our lost Vigilante kill.
There is no danger of vote trickling if we actually pay attention to the 2nd-4th place vote-earners (like we have been doing since the disaster of Day 1).
:P
That why I trust my good old spreadsheets. The Box is, however, useful for quickly finding all posts by a certain user since Search is down.
(I'm not messing with the Box, just finding it funny.)
Agreed, but I'm not talking about a conscious thought process so much as a common enough form of intuitive reasoning that mafia can easily manipulate to create some early bandwagons. It's not particularly difficult for a mafioso to misdirect some votes off of a fellow member, and even less so if there's multiple bandwagons forming at the same time.
At any rate, yeah, I don't think it's a feasible idea and I'm not eager to try it, especially in a game the size.
Aaand at this point I think I feel like MyDcmbr is a worse vote than Elldren
That would all depend on who we find the most suspicious.
Right now we've got:
[Edit-as of Post #1078]
LemmingHead - 8
Elldren - 3
Farangu - 3
LaOs - 3
Fiaryn; spool32; Thomamelas - 1
26 out of 46 people have not voted yet today.
(inactivity does not seem to be punished in this game, also--6, 9, and 8 people didn't vote on Days 1, 2, and 3)
The reasoning behind Lemminghead will have to be pretty good to top that.
!Thomamelas, I choose you.
Fair enough. We might want to make sure Elldren and I stay tied.