If we do a "suspicion vote rolecall" or something, it'll need to be public. Make a list of all suspicion votes that have been cast, then group people into threes and aim them at those who haven't had any suspicion yet.
Two potential problems, however. First, the Zealots might get a suspicion vote - this is more than possible, and would mean that we'd cut a swathe through our selves for no gain. Secondly, since dead men tell no tales, we've got no idea if the dead players used their suspicion votes.
I'd worry about the suspicion vote being similar to a group vigilante. I wonder if that's what happened to Orange, Crimson and/or Kay last night. If we just randomly did that we'd probably remove more villagers than zealots.
Then again, I could just be a paranoid n00b.
Well, the general wisdom is that it's better for a vigilante (or vigilantes) to shoot randomly with a chance to kill baddies than to just let the baddies control most of the kills who will never kill a baddie.
Spawnbroker has been giving me a bad vibe as well. No chance to catch up on the rest, and I won't be posting any more today unless internet comes back up at home.
KeikaDelectable tea, or deadly poison?Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
I'm in the same boat as Sticks (since we live together)... no internet today, so this will probably be my only post. I'm gonna go ahead and throw a vote out for JaysonFour since I don't have time to read through all of this while I'm using my computer at my office.
Keika on
"My fancies are fireflies / Specks of living light / twinkling in the dark." ~Rabindranath Tagore
Well I wasn't lying about being a mason. Tommy2 dying green at least means that specials die green, though at this point it does seem like baddies also do, unless we really suck.
I haven't been contacted by a seer or anything yet, so I'm not much help atm.
!Darian, I don't think killing off people who are encouraging discussion is a good idea.
Well I wasn't lying about being a mason. Tommy2 dying green at least means that specials die green, though at this point it does seem like baddies also do, unless we really suck.
I haven't been contacted by a seer or anything yet, so I'm not much help atm.
!Darian, I don't think killing off people who are encouraging discussion is a good idea.
...yeah...
I think at this point a baddie coming out to direct the thread would be kinda risky. If anything they would lie low, waiting to jump on a suspicion.
Well I wasn't lying about being a mason. Tommy2 dying green at least means that specials die green, though at this point it does seem like baddies also do, unless we really suck.
I haven't been contacted by a seer or anything yet, so I'm not much help atm.
!Darian, I don't think killing off people who are encouraging discussion is a good idea.
...yeah...
I think at this point a baddie coming out to direct the thread would be kinda risky. If anything they would lie low, waiting to jump on a suspicion.
The problem is that we don't know what point we're at. They could be desperate. They could be so confident that they just don't give a damn. Anything's possible, and so any behaviour is plausible.
Well I wasn't lying about being a mason. Tommy2 dying green at least means that specials die green, though at this point it does seem like baddies also do, unless we really suck.
I haven't been contacted by a seer or anything yet, so I'm not much help atm.
!Darian, I don't think killing off people who are encouraging discussion is a good idea.
...yeah...
I think at this point a baddie coming out to direct the thread would be kinda risky. If anything they would lie low, waiting to jump on a suspicion.
The problem is that we don't know what point we're at. They could be desperate. They could be so confident that they just don't give a damn. Anything's possible, and so any behaviour is plausible.
then any post is worthy of suspicion.
I think at any rate, we should be looking at lower post counts. There may be a baddie trying to direct the thread, but there are reliably always baddies lying low
This has all been going so tits up I just don't know what to think. I'm going to throw !Obbi out as a vote for being slightly suspicious in my eyes, but the last two days have knocked everything so off-kilter it's difficult to know how we're going to work this.
Oh, and on the suspicion PM role-call front, I sent one in for crimsoncoyote, just in case he was evil.
Actually, I was wondering when I was going to start getting votes just because I was posting a lot. I guess I should stop posting so people can take my inactivity as an admission of guilt so I can get bandwagoned. Oh wait.
Edit: If you really think I should be voted out, you can feel free to suspicion me. I'm probably going to get eaten by baddies tonight anyways for my high amount of posts.
Back on topic, bleh, so much suspicious people. Element Brian was the only one to vote for kuhlmeye, though I ain't sure if one vote is enough to be suspicious with all the variables present in this game. Spawnbroker's a bit suspect too, less for being active and more for having strange logic and assumptions.
Throwing a vote on !Ultros64 - my, you seem a bit eager to throw out Obbi, don't you?
Toxic ToysAre you really taking my advice?Really?Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
I don't think that the people who are post a fair amount are evil. I agree looking at who's posting and what are they doing. Most likely they are just tossing out a vote and hiding in the shadows.
Toxic Toys on
3DS code: 2938-6074-2306, Nintendo Network ID: ToxicToys, PSN: zutto
Yeah, Spawnbroker's logic is questionable, but he is triggering discussion and I don't really want to lose that.
So that makes Darian a little suspicious? It's hard to play this game with not very much information.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Hey guys, sorry I haven't been participating much, I've been pretty sick (Bronchitis). Looks like the toss up is between Obbi and Darian. I'm not going to even pretend that I RNG'd it, umm Darian.
Oh and are we still doing the vote in other color thing? Astrophobia, because going back the past couple pages you are the first person that voted in pink meaning your a single. I guess I could have just checked the page 1 list, but meh.
Hey guys, sorry I haven't been participating much, I've been pretty sick (Bronchitis). Looks like the toss up is between Obbi and Darian. I'm not going to even pretend that I RNG'd it, umm Darian.
Oh and are we still doing the vote in other color thing? Astrophobia, because going back the past couple pages you are the first person that voted in pink meaning your a single. I guess I could have just checked the page 1 list, but meh.
and You're also single, Element. So you can't vote for Astraphobia because he is also single (she?).
Anyways, if my logic is suspect, I really think it would be better to discuss why my logic is questionable and what is wrong about my assumptions rather than going "OMG he is using false logic, DIEEEEE!"
Can you see why one wouldn't make me very receptive to your argument, and the other actually gets us talking? Or maybe I'm just crazy.
I'm voting !Arasaki. He's been tickling my funny bone all game, as far back as Day 1. He never misses a chance to vote for me on Day 1 - but he did here. Nothing he's done sticks out in my mind, and that's unusual for him.
On Spawnbroker, it feels to me like he's trying to get everyone to use up their suspicions (randomly?), which is pretty much the only special power that regular singles and couples have in this game. While using those constructively is good, spending them wildly and randomly isn't going to help at all.
Singles
(7) simonwolf - (Poppy) - F - Single
(7) pablo_price - (Joshua) - M - Single
(7) Zandracon - (George) - M - Single
(5) MacGuffin - (Ruby) - F - Single
(9) Ultros64 - (Sophia) - F - Single
Couples
(6) Loxx - (Joseph) - M - Couple - Keika - (Lily)
(6) TheLawinator - (Megan) - F - Couple - Andrew Ryan - (Ryan)
(5) iamtheaznman - (Samuel) - M - Couple - GrimmyTOA - (Emma)
(7) CrownAxe - (Shae) - F - Couple - B:L - (Thomas)
(7) Eipnoom - (Jack) - M - Couple - Exarch - (Olivia)
Here's a list of people I barely noticed playing. The number on the left of their name is the number of posts they have in this thread (give or take 1 or 2)
edit: I think from this list we have a higher chance of hitting baddies than jumping on someone because their strategy/speculation isn't foolproof
Hey guys, sorry I haven't been participating much, I've been pretty sick (Bronchitis). Looks like the toss up is between Obbi and Darian. I'm not going to even pretend that I RNG'd it, umm Darian.
Oh and are we still doing the vote in other color thing? Astrophobia, because going back the past couple pages you are the first person that voted in pink meaning your a single. I guess I could have just checked the page 1 list, but meh.
I'm voting !Elementbrian because this is an odd post and because he was the lone voter in the trickle-down. It's as much of a red flag as anything else we've got going on right now.
If we do a "suspicion vote rolecall" or something, it'll need to be public. Make a list of all suspicion votes that have been cast, then group people into threes and aim them at those who haven't had any suspicion yet.
Two potential problems, however. First, the Zealots might get a suspicion vote - this is more than possible, and would mean that we'd cut a swathe through our selves for no gain. Secondly, since dead men tell no tales, we've got no idea if the dead players used their suspicion votes.
I'd worry about the suspicion vote being similar to a group vigilante. I wonder if that's what happened to Orange, Crimson and/or Kay last night. If we just randomly did that we'd probably remove more villagers than zealots.
Then again, I could just be a paranoid n00b.
Well, the general wisdom is that it's better for a vigilante (or vigilantes) to shoot randomly with a chance to kill baddies than to just let the baddies control most of the kills who will never kill a baddie.
I guess that makes sense. My first thought was that it was just counter-productive, especially since no one seems to fully understand the mechanics of how the suspicion votes work.
Singles
(7) simonwolf - (Poppy) - F - Single
(7) pablo_price - (Joshua) - M - Single
(7) Zandracon - (George) - M - Single
(5) MacGuffin - (Ruby) - F - Single
(9) Ultros64 - (Sophia) - F - Single
Couples
(6) Loxx - (Joseph) - M - Couple - Keika - (Lily)
(6) TheLawinator - (Megan) - F - Couple - Andrew Ryan - (Ryan)
(5) iamtheaznman - (Samuel) - M - Couple - GrimmyTOA - (Emma)
(7) CrownAxe - (Shae) - F - Couple - B:L - (Thomas)
(7) Eipnoom - (Jack) - M - Couple - Exarch - (Olivia)
Here's a list of people I barely noticed playing. The number on the left of their name is the number of posts they have in this thread (give or take 1 or 2)
edit: I think from this list we have a higher chance of hitting baddies than jumping on someone because their strategy/speculation isn't foolproof
Zandracon is always quiet; MacGuffin has been relatively inactive in the BSG games as well, so he's just not around much right now. Ultros64 got burned the last couple games while playing a village special/spokesperson type role, so might be laying low because of that. I can't simply explain away any of the others on that list, though. TheLaw has tended to lay low as an evil recently (witch Phalla) but would he do that twice in a row?
Also... you know you can click the number of posts from the subforum screen and it will give you a list of all the posters in the thread and their number of posts, right? No need to try to count them yourself.
Singles
(7) simonwolf - (Poppy) - F - Single
(7) pablo_price - (Joshua) - M - Single
(7) Zandracon - (George) - M - Single
(5) MacGuffin - (Ruby) - F - Single
(9) Ultros64 - (Sophia) - F - Single
Couples
(6) Loxx - (Joseph) - M - Couple - Keika - (Lily)
(6) TheLawinator - (Megan) - F - Couple - Andrew Ryan - (Ryan)
(5) iamtheaznman - (Samuel) - M - Couple - GrimmyTOA - (Emma)
(7) CrownAxe - (Shae) - F - Couple - B:L - (Thomas)
(7) Eipnoom - (Jack) - M - Couple - Exarch - (Olivia)
Here's a list of people I barely noticed playing. The number on the left of their name is the number of posts they have in this thread (give or take 1 or 2)
edit: I think from this list we have a higher chance of hitting baddies than jumping on someone because their strategy/speculation isn't foolproof
Zandracon is always quiet; MacGuffin has been relatively inactive in the BSG games as well, so he's just not around much right now. Ultros64 got burned the last couple games while playing a village special/spokesperson type role, so might be laying low because of that. I can't simply explain away any of the others on that list, though. TheLaw has tended to lay low as an evil recently (witch Phalla) but would he do that twice in a row?
Also... you know you can click the number of posts from the subforum screen and it will give you a list of all the posters in the thread and their number of posts, right? No need to try to count them yourself.
Blah, I'm terrible at computers and internetz :oops:
There are possible reasons, but in previous phallas evils usually lay low.
Posts
I haven't been contacted by a seer or anything yet, so I'm not much help atm.
!Darian, I don't think killing off people who are encouraging discussion is a good idea.
LoL: BunyipAristocrat
...yeah...
I think at this point a baddie coming out to direct the thread would be kinda risky. If anything they would lie low, waiting to jump on a suspicion.
The problem is that we don't know what point we're at. They could be desperate. They could be so confident that they just don't give a damn. Anything's possible, and so any behaviour is plausible.
then any post is worthy of suspicion.
I think at any rate, we should be looking at lower post counts. There may be a baddie trying to direct the thread, but there are reliably always baddies lying low
Oh, and on the suspicion PM role-call front, I sent one in for crimsoncoyote, just in case he was evil.
Edit: If you really think I should be voted out, you can feel free to suspicion me. I'm probably going to get eaten by baddies tonight anyways for my high amount of posts.
There ain't a thing to be scared of, mister.
Back on topic, bleh, so much suspicious people. Element Brian was the only one to vote for kuhlmeye, though I ain't sure if one vote is enough to be suspicious with all the variables present in this game. Spawnbroker's a bit suspect too, less for being active and more for having strange logic and assumptions.
Throwing a vote on !Ultros64 - my, you seem a bit eager to throw out Obbi, don't you?
So that makes Darian a little suspicious? It's hard to play this game with not very much information.
Oh and are we still doing the vote in other color thing? Astrophobia, because going back the past couple pages you are the first person that voted in pink meaning your a single. I guess I could have just checked the page 1 list, but meh.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
and You're also single, Element. So you can't vote for Astraphobia because he is also single (she?).
Anyways, if my logic is suspect, I really think it would be better to discuss why my logic is questionable and what is wrong about my assumptions rather than going "OMG he is using false logic, DIEEEEE!"
Can you see why one wouldn't make me very receptive to your argument, and the other actually gets us talking? Or maybe I'm just crazy.
Perhaps all the ankle she shows is making her ashamed of her sluttiness.
Suspicious indeed.
We think so, because the whole name in green thing.
I can't vote for mah man though! No Toxic vote for me!
!Wildcat
Here's a list of people I barely noticed playing. The number on the left of their name is the number of posts they have in this thread (give or take 1 or 2)
edit: I think from this list we have a higher chance of hitting baddies than jumping on someone because their strategy/speculation isn't foolproof
I'm voting !Elementbrian because this is an odd post and because he was the lone voter in the trickle-down. It's as much of a red flag as anything else we've got going on right now.
I guess that makes sense. My first thought was that it was just counter-productive, especially since no one seems to fully understand the mechanics of how the suspicion votes work.
Zandracon is always quiet; MacGuffin has been relatively inactive in the BSG games as well, so he's just not around much right now. Ultros64 got burned the last couple games while playing a village special/spokesperson type role, so might be laying low because of that. I can't simply explain away any of the others on that list, though. TheLaw has tended to lay low as an evil recently (witch Phalla) but would he do that twice in a row?
Also... you know you can click the number of posts from the subforum screen and it will give you a list of all the posters in the thread and their number of posts, right? No need to try to count them yourself.
Blah, I'm terrible at computers and internetz :oops:
There are possible reasons, but in previous phallas evils usually lay low.