That would be awfully convenient for you, wouldn't it?
Thetheroo on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Don't really know who they are yet. Besides, we have 5 hours plus left in Day 1. It's not exactly kill-the-inactives time when people may not even have had a chance to get online in the gameday.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Considering I'm not leading the vote, no, not really. It'd be convenient as hell for Edward though. And you know, the village. Inactive villages are almost as bad as the bad guys in my experience watching these things.
mtvcdm's point is well taken though.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Shouldn't we rally around one of the non-participants and bludgeon their sleeping body to death in bed?
While there could be a bad guy nestled among inactives, real inactive players tend to get tossed out of the game after a certain amount of time by the host, so going after them is often useless.
Shouldn't we rally around one of the non-participants and bludgeon their sleeping body to death in bed?
While there could be a bad guy nestled among inactives, real inactive players tend to get tossed out of the game after a certain amount of time by the host, so going after them is often useless.
But when you have no information, killing someone who is going to die and thus shorten the village's odds eventually is a reasonable move instead of hoping our RNGs ping a bad guy is my point.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Shouldn't we rally around one of the non-participants and bludgeon their sleeping body to death in bed?
While there could be a bad guy nestled among inactives, real inactive players tend to get tossed out of the game after a certain amount of time by the host, so going after them is often useless.
But when you have no information, killing someone who is going to die and thus shorten the village's odds eventually is a reasonable move instead of hoping our RNGs ping a bad guy is my point.
So you'd advise a move which will guarantee absolutely no progress (a stagnation which will be riddled with kills by evil players) instead of one with a chance of success. Interesting strategy.
Killing borderline-inactive players because you'd rather kill them instead of people who actually participate is fine, but these lines of action and reasoning are horrid.
Shouldn't we rally around one of the non-participants and bludgeon their sleeping body to death in bed?
While there could be a bad guy nestled among inactives, real inactive players tend to get tossed out of the game after a certain amount of time by the host, so going after them is often useless.
But when you have no information, killing someone who is going to die and thus shorten the village's odds eventually is a reasonable move instead of hoping our RNGs ping a bad guy is my point.
So you'd advise a move which will guarantee absolutely no progress (a stagnation which will be riddled with kills by evil players) instead of one with a chance of success. Interesting strategy.
Killing borderline-inactive players because you'd rather kill them instead of people who actually participate is fine, but these lines of action and reasoning are horrid.
I said when you have no information, as of five hours from now, we have something to go off of. But right now we have a bunch of badger videos and posts which say "RNG generators says N, vote ____."
I figure if you treat the people who haven't posted as dead vanillagers, you can make an argument like so:
40 villagers total, assume 4 evil, 6 inactives as I think we have now:
Village kills an inactive: evil kills one, two vigilante kills (presumably active players): We have 27-29 active good guys, 2-4 active bad guys, 5 inactive players who are essentially dead anyway.
Or Village kills an active player: 26-28 active good guys, 2-4 active bad guys, 6 inactive players who are essentially dead anyway.
I like the odds in scenario one slightly better than in scenario two.
Now, I could be an inexperienced rube as this is my first time playing, but I've watched a good number of these games and that's been my thought on first day bandwagoning for a while now. Now if someone were to make a catastrophic error in the next four and a half hours obviously I would change my opinion, and certainly this would be a stupid strategy on day two, as we could possibly deduce something and the seer could hopefully start forming a network to make the village organized, but right now, I see no use in randomly flailing about.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Maybe they're watching and lurking, cos they're the bad guys really (I'm back from supervising the furniture move) (its a bit exciting, tomorrow morning, brand new sofas are arriving at our house - we've never had new sofas before) and will pounce after I've gone to bed, and vote to kill me cos I'm obviously a sweet and innocent villager, who would never harm a fly even.
Wait, we are supposed to use subterfuge, prestidigitation, smoke and mirrors, aren't we?
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
I see where you're coming from, but it's more likely that an inactive will be a villager than a baddie/special based on pure numbers and on player interest.
And like mtvcdm said, the game is just starting and there's plenty of time in the day. Hell, it's only 3:20 PM over here, many people on the Pacific aren't even home from work yet :P
edit: new sofas are awesome
James 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 May 2008
I think if LewieP's Mum gets killed Day 1, Tube will ban phallas forever.
I see where you're coming from, but it's more likely that an inactive will be a villager than a baddie/special based on pure numbers and on player interest.
And like mtvcdm said, the game is just starting and there's plenty of time in the day. Hell, it's only 3:20 PM over here, many people on the Pacific aren't even home from work yet :P
edit: new sofas are awesome
I'm more arguing for a bandwagon if there are still inactives at say, 10 PM EST than anything. And yeah, I realize that an inactive will be a villager most likely, but on the other hand we have a decent shot at bandwagoning an active good special and either killing them or forcing an epic reveal (like, if you believe Rainfall, they did in the Phalloship of the Ring game in CF...where they got the damn Witch King first, in an unbelievable bit of village luck). I'd rather avoid that. The special death, not killing the Witch King, that'd be sweet.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Did I just get an inactivity notice before the end of day 1?
Jeeze
!James
:?:
I am confused if you got an inactivity notice or if you are referencing the argument. Because if the later you are voting for the wrong person and I would suggest rereading my argument :P
Well no, I was just wondering if his statements were connected. If they are, he's either skipped what's been said (which arouses my suspicion), or didn't read it properly.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Man, am I glad Day 1 wasn't yesterday, when I got an hour of sleep and zombie-walked all day before collapsing on the bed at 5 PM and remaining half-conscious until it was time to go to work. I'm an inactive, better vote me off.
It can happen, any day at all. I'm not in inactive-hunting mode until maybe Day 4. One day, Day 1 particularly, is nothing. There has to be a habit made of it before I go inactive-whacking.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
I would like a list, for reference, of those who have cast votes using RNG's, and those who have not. (Also noting who swapped from RNG to directed, and who went from directed to RNG.) May be worth something later.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Okay, then, those who have admitted RNG'ing and those who haven't.
Got no idea what kind of road it'll lead us down, but my figuring is that... actually, you know what, not even going to say my theory yet because I've been burned before by saying what my theory was before I have the info I need.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
and a blender
Or more to the point, "love".
mtvcdm's point is well taken though.
Roster:
1. LewiePs Mummy
2. mtvcdm 1
3. Toxic Toys 1
4. visiblehowl
5. werehippy
6. Maximus 1
7. Kilroy 2
8. Gumpy
9. Elki 2
10. El SKid
11. Variable
12. chamberlain 1
13. Aldo 1
14. evilbob 1
15. Richy 1
16. enlightenedbum 2
17. Frosteey
18. Ultarune
19. durax
20. Somestickguy
21. Satan. 1
22. Varcayn
23. Shamus 1
24. SpeedySwaf
25. James 1
26. duallain
27. Stew_Stick 1
28. Greeper 1
29. Daedalus 2
30. DasUberEdward 3
31. Malkor 2
32. TehSpectre
33. Red Bird
34. gundam470 2
35. Thetheroo 1
36. TheLawinator
37. Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud 1
38. Medopine
39. One Thousand Dicks 1
40. Hilger
While there could be a bad guy nestled among inactives, real inactive players tend to get tossed out of the game after a certain amount of time by the host, so going after them is often useless.
But when you have no information, killing someone who is going to die and thus shorten the village's odds eventually is a reasonable move instead of hoping our RNGs ping a bad guy is my point.
So you'd advise a move which will guarantee absolutely no progress (a stagnation which will be riddled with kills by evil players) instead of one with a chance of success. Interesting strategy.
Killing borderline-inactive players because you'd rather kill them instead of people who actually participate is fine, but these lines of action and reasoning are horrid.
I said when you have no information, as of five hours from now, we have something to go off of. But right now we have a bunch of badger videos and posts which say "RNG generators says N, vote ____."
I figure if you treat the people who haven't posted as dead vanillagers, you can make an argument like so:
40 villagers total, assume 4 evil, 6 inactives as I think we have now:
Village kills an inactive: evil kills one, two vigilante kills (presumably active players): We have 27-29 active good guys, 2-4 active bad guys, 5 inactive players who are essentially dead anyway.
Or Village kills an active player: 26-28 active good guys, 2-4 active bad guys, 6 inactive players who are essentially dead anyway.
I like the odds in scenario one slightly better than in scenario two.
Now, I could be an inexperienced rube as this is my first time playing, but I've watched a good number of these games and that's been my thought on first day bandwagoning for a while now. Now if someone were to make a catastrophic error in the next four and a half hours obviously I would change my opinion, and certainly this would be a stupid strategy on day two, as we could possibly deduce something and the seer could hopefully start forming a network to make the village organized, but right now, I see no use in randomly flailing about.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
And like mtvcdm said, the game is just starting and there's plenty of time in the day. Hell, it's only 3:20 PM over here, many people on the Pacific aren't even home from work yet :P
edit: new sofas are awesome
edit: Nevermind, that was retracted. Whoo, worst TOTP ever!!!!1!
Probably...
werehippy: i haven't been keeping track yet, but a number of votes have been retracted/replaced.
Yes, some votes have been retracted, its times like these
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
I'm more arguing for a bandwagon if there are still inactives at say, 10 PM EST than anything. And yeah, I realize that an inactive will be a villager most likely, but on the other hand we have a decent shot at bandwagoning an active good special and either killing them or forcing an epic reveal (like, if you believe Rainfall, they did in the Phalloship of the Ring game in CF...where they got the damn Witch King first, in an unbelievable bit of village luck). I'd rather avoid that. The special death, not killing the Witch King, that'd be sweet.
Jeeze
!James
:?:
I am confused if you got an inactivity notice or if you are referencing the argument. Because if the later you are voting for the wrong person and I would suggest rereading my argument :P
There was grillin' and sandwiches after an intense game of horseshoes.
Anyone who thinks a game of horseshoes could possibly be intense must worship the Raven. I'm watching you. :P
If they're not, then whatever.
But I'm going to take whatever I can get :P
It can happen, any day at all. I'm not in inactive-hunting mode until maybe Day 4. One day, Day 1 particularly, is nothing. There has to be a habit made of it before I go inactive-whacking.
Maybe i'm just a hard working villager who gives everything his all since i'm not in the favor of the dark twins?
Horseshoes though? Highly suspicious. Now croquet...that would be something to get intense about.
More later.
for the record, i rng'ed
I'm sorry.
Variable, TheLawinator and Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud don't seem to have posted yet.
I vote TheLawinator for improper use of punctuation.
Night all, I'll be back after the voting, hopefully!
Edit: Oh, no, you're here, Retract!!!
I don't know, bandwagon, or tired, crappy logic?
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Got no idea what kind of road it'll lead us down, but my figuring is that... actually, you know what, not even going to say my theory yet because I've been burned before by saying what my theory was before I have the info I need.