446 replies to this topic

[KevinH]

I like to give the benefit of the doubt to more active players.  At the very least, the game is more entertaining for a while.

[Lyner]

 

 

i'd hate lynching someone who's inactive. in my opinion inactives are usually simple townies who wanted a power role but are disappointed and don't feel useful enough. 

 

Yup but not exactly.

Players can be inactive for any reason, doesn't necessary mean they're townie, highly inactives are probably VT's.

As they would risk be forced to leave the game and give up their power role.

 

That said if the town does decide to lynch an inactive player, which of the least active does one pick.

I think the most inactive has the most chance of been a VT while the some not quite active but not extremely inactive have a better chance of been Scum.

If the town decides to lynch an inactive type player on Day 1 in hope of lynching a scum then we should be lynching a player somewhere in between active and highly inactive.

 

 

Depend though, RL issues inactive or not posting inactive, the later one sure
would raise suspicions, while what I mean is lynching the former

[Kaziocore]

Votecount 1.03
 

Alternate_Tree (0) -
Chaplain of death (1) - Nerau
Commander Shepard (0) -
d3mon (0) -
DarkIceDragon (0) -
Euclid of Alexandria (0) -
Imran Ehsan (1) - Alternate_Tree
iSocialism (1) - killgor
KevinH (2) - Imran Ehsan, iSocialism
killgor (1) - Chaplain of death
Lyner (0) -
Nerau (3) - d3mon, Euclid of Alexandria, Commander Shepard
reign of terror (1) - KevinH

Not Voting (3) - DarkIceDragon, reign of terror, Lyner

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.
Nerau is the current wagon leader at L-4
Deadline is Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 @ 03:06 EDT

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Putting someone at L-1 or better yet lynching someone... sure it's likely gonna be a VT but at least it provides us with info to work with on Day 2. Who was on that wagon? When did they jump on? Early, late or in the middle (aka comfort zone for scum)? Who hammered? Did someone jump off the wagon? None of these are definite proof of scumminess but at least they are hints that can later be combined with other hints to hopefully build a case. And who knows... we might get lucky and actually lynch a scum.

Inactives... the thing is that this discussion is always the same. Actives are spared, inactives are targeted, especially the somewhat inactive. Scum know this shit and might very well decide to hide in plain sight between the actives. I don't believe for a second that we're more likely to hit scum by targeting inactives. It's a null tell at best. As has been argued it might very well be a VT that had hoped to be PR or scum and (incorrectly) thinks that as a VT he can't contribute to the game as much. Nonetheless, the most important thing IMO is that someone be lynched and if most of you feel it should be an inactive I'll go with that sentiment. I'm already voting for one now.

[Chaplain of death]

My reason for voting for you has nothing to do with your vote Killgor. It has everything to do with the fact that your contributions to the conversation have been nil.

 

My vote was to prompt you to either start taking part in the conversation to defend yourself or to let my vote stand unopposed.

[killgor]

whatever floats your boat CoD

[Commander Shepard]

I updated KevinH's post count, it's fairly accurate.

I'm going vote someone in area of inactivity I feel most likely to hold scum.

But not yet, there is barely anything between them.

 

Post count so far

 

17 Commander Shepard

13 killgor

12 KevinH

11 Euclid of Alexandria

8 Chaplain of death

6 Lyner

4 Alternate_Tree

2 d3mon

2 Imran Ehsan

1 DarkIceDragon

1 iSocialism

1 Nerau

0 reign of terror

 

 

[KevinH]

I'm voting for the most inactive at the moment!

[d3mon]

I am one of the inactive ones..

 

Anyhow, except the quick votes on Nerau, I have not observed anything that will cause me to even consider voting for anyone. So.. I will do what imho is the best course of action for the town.

 

Vote: No Lynch

[Commander Shepard]

I was going to vote you d3mon, you're in the sweet spot for lynching. 

[d3mon]

I was going to vote you d3mon, you're in the sweet spot for lynching. 

 

I love being in the sweet spot..

[iSocialism]

The second day is where it counts, I'm still new to this game and trying to see how people act regularly and with roles.

[killgor]

you guys are right. the game is a bit too slow now. let me mix it up a bit, my usual style. lemme see... should i try to equalize the number of votes or should i put someone way in front?

 

 

vote: Nerau

 

there we go. have fun y'all

[iSocialism]

Unvote

 

Vote; Kilgor

 

I think he's is trying to hard not to have a lynch.

"which either means, he's a regular person, or one of the selected members trying to buy time, and he could also be scum trying to pretend he's not scum only to make himself seem like he's not scum but one of the selected members who "knows" who to lynch. " - Cpt. obvious statement 

Either way, inactive players can get voted for, but in the same, too much activity can be a red flag. There's the one staying quiet to hide that they are scum, and in this case (my opinion) he's trying to cause distraction to bring some attention to himself but later "ensure" people he's not scum. It's more about the action of the people the people more than the words used to try to find scum.

[Imran Ehsan]

My way of operating is Lynch on Day 1 (not No Lynch). While choosing the target for the lynch, lynch the most inactive. Inactives harm the town not help the town even if they are townies. They are also less likely to be power roles, as has already been pointed out that VTs get easily bored. No lynch does not help the town because it gives us no info on Day 2 and we dont have any record of who jumped the bandwagon to lynch the towny (i am assuming it is likely a townie will get lynched over scum). So lynching an inactive town is the best option over non-lynching or lynching an active but scum looking player.

 

As such,

 

UNVOTE

 

Vote: DarkIce Dragon

 

Nerau is also an option but I would rather see two inactives as potential lynch candidates right now instead of one. If DarkIce becomes active I will switch my vote.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

You can't go vote for and lynch an inactive and argue that such behavior is pro-town but then, when they have flipped town, argue that others on the same wagon are more likely scum. As a result the info from lynching an inactive townie is not really that useful. Anyone that jumped on that wagon has the excuse of the victims inactivity for their vote which IMO seems a great way for scum to try and hide themselves as for instance Lyner tried to do in the previous game. Maybe instead of trying to lynch an inactive we should try to lynch someone that is trying to lynch an inactive. I bet that would increase our chance to actually hit scum.

Therefore...

Vote: Imran

[Commander Shepard]

This just confirms it.

We should be trying to lynch someone that is trying lynch someone that is trying to lynch an inactive.

Imran is in the sweet spot, but I don't know about him being scum considering the recent past, probability is lower of him being scum is lower.

[Commander Shepard]

That was a mess at the end.

[KevinH]

So let me get this straight.

 

• The most pro-town behavior is to lynch someone.
• Voting for an inactive is pro-scum.

 

So we vote for and lynch an active player that will most likely be a townie.

 

In the end, we have a dead active townie with everyone on the bandwagon using the excuse that it was the most pro-town thing to do.

 

How could it be any better for the scum?

 

[Imran Ehsan]

You can't go vote for and lynch an inactive and argue that such behavior is pro-town but then, when they have flipped town, argue that others on the same wagon are more likely scum. As a result the info from lynching an inactive townie is not really that useful. Anyone that jumped on that wagon has the excuse of the victims inactivity for their vote which IMO seems a great way for scum to try and hide themselves as for instance Lyner tried to do in the previous game. Maybe instead of trying to lynch an inactive we should try to lynch someone that is trying to lynch an inactive. I bet that would increase our chance to actually hit scum.

Therefore...

Vote: Imran

 

The useful info is from those who jumped on the bandwagon, from those who voted for someone else and those who voted no lynch. We get proper voting records and stances on the lynch from everyone while at the same time minimising the negative affect this has to the town..i.e. lynch an active player who is more likely to be a PR or a townie who is more likely to scum hunt. Lynching in inactive townie who does not contribute to the scum hunting is preferable. However, I did not say that lynching in inactive townie is better than lynching a scum. Lynching a scum is of course the best result..but it is almost impossible that you will hit scum on Day 1 with random voting and voting on "hunches". I prefer that if we lynch someone we lynch someone who is not contributing to the town.

 

On the other hand, anyone who is actively advocating to lynch an active member on Day 1 with flimsy excuse is very likely to be scum.