Mini 1555 Board Game UPick Mafia--Game Over!
Forum rules
- The Betting Pool
- The Betting Pool
-
The Betting Pool
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 470
- Joined: January 7, 2014
Vote Count 1.02:
With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch!
LastManStanding (L-7):
morph the cat (L-5): Hadrian, Madotsuki
Madotsuki (L-7):
Porkens (L-5): hiplop, 1baldeagle1
Quill (L-7):
SpyreX (L-7):
HighShroomish (L-6): Kdub
hiplop (L-6): Spyrex
awesomeusername (L-7):
Kdub (L-7):
Surye (L-7):
1baldeagle1 (L-7):
Hadrian (L-7):
Not Voting: LastManStanding, morph the cat, Porkens, Quill, HighShroomish, awesomeusername, Surye
V/LA:
Deadline is in (expired on 2014-03-12 19:16:41)
With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch!
LastManStanding (L-7):
morph the cat (L-5): Hadrian, Madotsuki
Madotsuki (L-7):
Porkens (L-5): hiplop, 1baldeagle1
Quill (L-7):
SpyreX (L-7):
HighShroomish (L-6): Kdub
hiplop (L-6): Spyrex
awesomeusername (L-7):
Kdub (L-7):
Surye (L-7):
1baldeagle1 (L-7):
Hadrian (L-7):
Not Voting: LastManStanding, morph the cat, Porkens, Quill, HighShroomish, awesomeusername, Surye
V/LA:
Deadline is in (expired on 2014-03-12 19:16:41)
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
It's relevant in terms of the number of scum who can wind up in a townbloc.In post 74, morph the cat wrote:We have not, but I fail to see how that's relevant.In post 73, morph the cat wrote:I don't think we've ever lost a scumbuddy in our scumgames.
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
Who indeed.In post 72, SpyreX wrote:Because of whats happening here, in various forms. If its not "NO YOURE NOT MY REAL DAD" or "IM TOO KOOL FOR YOUR RULES *smokes cigarette*" it turns into "Well article 4 section b says the when it should say and we should take this to committe and who adds new players who watches the watchmen???"Well, actually, I agree with the second part, but why doesspeakingof it make it almost impossible to do?
And before you know it, someone peed the bed.
I'm still confused, to be honest. Are you saying that it turns into rules-lawyering rather than the default type of shitposting? If so, I'd say that anyone who got that stick up their butt would end up in the scummy-members list. ANYWAY, you and I don't need to belabor the point, for real. I really care more about the process and, as you've already pointed out, it has self-prophesized itself into reality anyway.
worse than random
I don't like the charter idea either, actually. So, um, "haha, you're wrong again" seems like the mature response?In post 47, Hadrian wrote:I have no interest in a charte or belonging to the charter. My other head might becausehe's dulllikes rules! and the wording of rules! and spreadsheets!
I
am
dull though. Dull enough that I'm going to sign my posts, even.
Even people who fake-claim guilty results on claimed PRs as town presumably think they're being "reasonable" though?In post 31, Porkens wrote:-Members of the charter must respond to what's happening in the game in a reasonable way.
Do scum generally try to "take control of the town" this early or in this way?In post 42, 1baldeagle1 wrote:Actually, I find this scummy. You are trying to take control of the town
But analysing how people vote, when they move their votes and how they justify their votes is a big part of catching scum. If people not in the GAUTB aren't voting (which is the only way to stop them having an effect on the lynch), then we don't get to do that for the people who are actually suspects . That doesn't seem like a good idea.In post 55, awesomeusername wrote:I kinda like the general idea though, so I'd like to suggest a compromise.
What if we gave the sole power of lynching to a generally-agreed upon townbloc?
~ Plessiez
Why would this be a concern unless you are scum? Do you think there are other players in the game who, as scum, would react to this in the same way as you would?In post 67, morph the cat wrote:Part of my concern about the charter idea is knowing that it would give scum-me something town-looking to do for a huge chunk of day 1 and that discussing tweaks, and whether or when to abort the idea would do the same for smaller chunks of future days.
I'm a player who is not comfortable with scum roles. I'm probably the kind of scum player that porkens hopes to flush out with this idea, but I think it would do the opposite with me.
Given these possibilities and your views on them, do you think that scum are therefore more likely to agree with the charter so that more of them get into the town bloc?In post 71, SpyreX wrote:You're scum. You're in the townbloc yay! Now you spend d1 carefully tweaking and talking about the charter. Meanwhile, your bro's are not in the bloc and up for murder. So now, you're already looking at the squeeze because you know while short term you're safe long term you've got to plan for "when there's 6 of us left how the hell do I convince them I'm the towniest town in the bloc".
Lets say there's two scum there and its an even more wonderful world. Night comes and you've got your NK. Now, on top of everything else - do you weaken the bloc? Well..maybe? How do you direct them away from your third bro in such a way that doesn't paint a big ass target on one or, god forbid, both of you? Do you kill outside of it? Now, even if they were wrong about both of you (because you played so town) - you're now killing targets the town wants gone anyways.
Where it falls apart is if ALL the scum are in it. Thats a bad world. But, pragmatism says if all the scums play town enough that holy fire purging wins them the game then I can't even be mad.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Mafia - 17-player large theme, currently needs (0) replacements
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
I don't think I have a particularly unique approach to scum roles.In post 80, Kdub wrote:Why would this be a concern unless you are scum? Do you think there are other players in the game who, as scum, would react to this in the same way as you would?In post 67, morph the cat wrote:Part of my concern about the charter idea is knowing that it would give scum-me something town-looking to do for a huge chunk of day 1 and that discussing tweaks, and whether or when to abort the idea would do the same for smaller chunks of future days.
I'm a player who is not comfortable with scum roles. I'm probably the kind of scum player that porkens hopes to flush out with this idea, but I think it would do the opposite with me.
Post 77 was my epiphany. The potential weaknesses and issues are mostly the same weaknesses and issues any townbloc, however formed, faces.
I think the one thing we're all forgetting is that this charter/code of conduct/ruleset isn't something we have to keep set in stone. If we set it up today, and all it does is get us a couple of mislynches, we can decide, as a town, to jettison the whole thing – and then look into the arrangement of it to see if we can find the scum who are left, based on how this all came together.
Here's my read of where everyone is on the charter, along with town/scum reads where I'm comfortable moving away from null (spoiler: there aren't a lot of those yet)
Porkens - Probably town, unless this whole thing goes to hell, but this is a pretty ballsy first move for scum
Quill (adding myself in the interest of thoroughness)
SpyreX - Although he thinks hiplop is
Madotsuki
HighShroomish
Hiplop - One bad post that does nothing for us? Come on, bro.
Awesome - He says he's against it, but as Porkens subsequently points out he's sort of for it. Awesome, is this still where you'd consider yourself?
kdub - But probably town for engaging us while opposing the charter
1baldeagle1 - Slight scum read. I don't like the way he goes about denouncing the charter; it doesn't feel town-friendly.
Hadrian - See notes on kdub. I feel better about the former, but that may just be hydra-bias talking.
Morph - Were against, but surprisingly/suddenly have come around to the idea. Morph, what's your actual stance on this now?
LastManStanding - Hasn't even posted yet? Come on, bro.
Surye - Also haven't posted yet? (Although has actually been offsite for a few days, from his account page) But still.
Well, I guess I thought there was more pro-charter support than there really was, but I still think it's worth pursuing in some form. This makes me feel less like scum is in favor of it though...if they were, they'd be rushing to get on board, not lurking or trying to dismantle it.
Here's my read of where everyone is on the charter, along with town/scum reads where I'm comfortable moving away from null (spoiler: there aren't a lot of those yet)
Pro-charter
Porkens - Probably town, unless this whole thing goes to hell, but this is a pretty ballsy first move for scum
Quill (adding myself in the interest of thoroughness)
SpyreX - Although he thinks hiplop is
really
scummy after one post, which is sort of weirdAnti-Charter
Madotsuki
HighShroomish
Hiplop - One bad post that does nothing for us? Come on, bro.
Awesome - He says he's against it, but as Porkens subsequently points out he's sort of for it. Awesome, is this still where you'd consider yourself?
kdub - But probably town for engaging us while opposing the charter
1baldeagle1 - Slight scum read. I don't like the way he goes about denouncing the charter; it doesn't feel town-friendly.
Hadrian - See notes on kdub. I feel better about the former, but that may just be hydra-bias talking.
On the Fence
Morph - Were against, but surprisingly/suddenly have come around to the idea. Morph, what's your actual stance on this now?
Too Soon to Tell
LastManStanding - Hasn't even posted yet? Come on, bro.
Surye - Also haven't posted yet? (Although has actually been offsite for a few days, from his account page) But still.
Well, I guess I thought there was more pro-charter support than there really was, but I still think it's worth pursuing in some form. This makes me feel less like scum is in favor of it though...if they were, they'd be rushing to get on board, not lurking or trying to dismantle it.
- awesomeusername
- awesomeusername
-
awesomeusername
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 376
- Joined: January 6, 2014
- Location: awesomelocation
@Hadrian: In practice, these players probably won't actually be 100% ignored, and there's no way we can stop people from placing votes. But yeah, I see your point. Actually, I think any charter in general is going to get rid of ways to scumhunt, because even though Porkens says he's not going to intentionally disrupt anyone's style of scumhunting, drafting a charter will effectively purge the game of some scum tells people might be looking for, like, say, lurking.
@Porkens, SpyreX: The whole policy-lynching strategy just makes me uneasy because it feels so much like you're setting up easy mislynches… I think I'm willing to trust you for now, though. Any lurker is obviously a better lynch than either of you at this point anyways. I feel kinda bad about my paranoia since this is part of what we're trying to avoid, but if you're town I think I'll be convinced by the end of the day.
I do see your point that the players being lined up for these lynches are more likely to be scum though.
And @SpyreX: I agree with most of your reads thus far, but I'm a little unclear on your 1baldeagle1 read. Are you saying you're scumreading him or he's the type of player we need to policy lynch?
VOTE: Hiplop
Talk to me. Are you against this charter idea or not? Why?
PEdit: @Quill: I'm not 100% decided yet but I think I'm for the charter right now. I think there some changes to be made, but that's sort of the point.
@Porkens, SpyreX: The whole policy-lynching strategy just makes me uneasy because it feels so much like you're setting up easy mislynches… I think I'm willing to trust you for now, though. Any lurker is obviously a better lynch than either of you at this point anyways. I feel kinda bad about my paranoia since this is part of what we're trying to avoid, but if you're town I think I'll be convinced by the end of the day.
I do see your point that the players being lined up for these lynches are more likely to be scum though.
And @SpyreX: I agree with most of your reads thus far, but I'm a little unclear on your 1baldeagle1 read. Are you saying you're scumreading him or he's the type of player we need to policy lynch?
VOTE: Hiplop
Talk to me. Are you against this charter idea or not? Why?
So do you think Porkens is scum? Why? And why no vote?In post 41, HighShroomish wrote:There are two reasons why I think you might really be doing this. And I'm not liking the town one so far.
PEdit: @Quill: I'm not 100% decided yet but I think I'm for the charter right now. I think there some changes to be made, but that's sort of the point.
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
[quote="In post 82, Quill"]Morph - Were against, but surprisingly/suddenly have come around to the idea. Morph, what's your actual stance on this now?[/quote
Cabd and I talked about it a little last night. 4 pages into a game I usually don't have a lot of townreads, but we're both leaning town to varying degrees of strength on all the players who've expressed support of the idea. Our nascent townbloc may wind up being pro-charter. That basically pushes us both from opposition to curiosity. As long as I (speaking for myself but I'll be surprised if Cabd disagrees) don't see it as actually harmful to the gamestate, I'll put some effort in and see where it leads.
Cabd and I talked about it a little last night. 4 pages into a game I usually don't have a lot of townreads, but we're both leaning town to varying degrees of strength on all the players who've expressed support of the idea. Our nascent townbloc may wind up being pro-charter. That basically pushes us both from opposition to curiosity. As long as I (speaking for myself but I'll be surprised if Cabd disagrees) don't see it as actually harmful to the gamestate, I'll put some effort in and see where it leads.
- LastManStanding
- LastManStanding
-
LastManStanding
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 374
- Joined: January 12, 2014
- Location: No man's land
I swear I am posting this at my earliest opportunity. Today has been busy IRL... The game has been on for like a day and it's already 4 pages and a lot of talk has been said. Reading.
My opinion on charter idea? It's a fresh idea, never seen before, and it sounds like something that could work. I have no objections to the charter and its rules (and it sounds like an experiment worth testing). It could wind up being a good place for scum to hide in but for now I don't mind. Let's just see whether people agree to it or not.
I do not find Porkens obvtown because of his idea though. I do not find him scum, either. But if I'd have to say, Porkens appears more town than scum right now.
There's a little meta going on right now. I, as a newer player, cannot participate in meta discussion. Is this an advantage?
Awesomeusername has a terrible avi. This is relevant.
My opinion on charter idea? It's a fresh idea, never seen before, and it sounds like something that could work. I have no objections to the charter and its rules (and it sounds like an experiment worth testing). It could wind up being a good place for scum to hide in but for now I don't mind. Let's just see whether people agree to it or not.
I do not find Porkens obvtown because of his idea though. I do not find him scum, either. But if I'd have to say, Porkens appears more town than scum right now.
There's a little meta going on right now. I, as a newer player, cannot participate in meta discussion. Is this an advantage?
This I like. Might be hard for every member to come up with something super-genius though.In post 29, Porkens wrote:how about this:
-Members of the charter are required to post one relevant, new idea per game day.
I think those are already included in the rules: 2. We will participate in a useful and pro-town way. and 3. We will participate regularly. We will not lurk.In post 31, Porkens wrote:I mean just think of everything you'd love if every player did:
-Members of the charter must respond to what's happening in the game in a reasonable way.
-Members of the charter must read the game.
ohareyouguysmasons?
Awesomeusername has a terrible avi. This is relevant.
I am drowning in the walls of text blurgh blurgh blaargh
"Growth requires perseverance."
- LastManStanding
- LastManStanding
-
LastManStanding
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 374
- Joined: January 12, 2014
- Location: No man's land
I have an idea. How about each of us post the board game picks we made? It has no relevance on alignments but it could be useful (and fun?) to see. I'll lead by example. I picked Dominion because me and my friends play it all the time.
"Growth requires perseverance."
- awesomeusername
- awesomeusername
-
awesomeusername
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 376
- Joined: January 6, 2014
- Location: awesomelocation
Augh, both sides have good points.
I think one of my problems with the charter is that it telegraphs town's moves and then holds us to them, thus making it relatively easy for scum to avoid being lynched. I also like morph's point that it gives scum something to talk about whilst not actually being helpful. Something I've got to think about is whether the charter makes it harder for scum to hide, since they can't slip through the cracks, or easier, since they've got a ruleset to follow and can look busy.
morph indirectly brings up something I wanted to look into. There seems to be a correlation between people supporting the charter and people being town-read (maybe I'm just projecting my own reads, but I think this is true for others as well).
The main thing I do like about the charter is that it raises town's level of play. I can see why you might want to lynch players who are playing anti-town even if they're not scum. Once you've got a really solid town, scum can't escape.
I think one of my problems with the charter is that it telegraphs town's moves and then holds us to them, thus making it relatively easy for scum to avoid being lynched. I also like morph's point that it gives scum something to talk about whilst not actually being helpful. Something I've got to think about is whether the charter makes it harder for scum to hide, since they can't slip through the cracks, or easier, since they've got a ruleset to follow and can look busy.
morph indirectly brings up something I wanted to look into. There seems to be a correlation between people supporting the charter and people being town-read (maybe I'm just projecting my own reads, but I think this is true for others as well).
The main thing I do like about the charter is that it raises town's level of play. I can see why you might want to lynch players who are playing anti-town even if they're not scum. Once you've got a really solid town, scum can't escape.
- awesomeusername
- awesomeusername
-
awesomeusername
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 376
- Joined: January 6, 2014
- Location: awesomelocation
Gah, meant to hit preview.In post 87, awesomeusername wrote:Augh, both sides have good points.
I think one of my problems with the charter is that it telegraphs town's moves and then holds us to them, thus making it relatively easy for scum to avoid being lynched. I also like morph's point that it gives scum something to talk about whilst not actually being helpful. Something I've got to think about is whether the charter makes it harder for scum to hide, since they can't slip through the cracks, or easier, since they've got a ruleset to follow and can look busy.
morph indirectly brings up something I wanted to look into. There seems to be a correlation between people supporting the charter and people being town-read (maybe I'm just projecting my own reads, but I think this is true for others as well).This was something the original charter entailed anyway, but I sorta feel like my reads are being skewed and I don't like it.
The main thing I do like about the charter is that it raises town's level of play. I can see why you might want to lynch players who are playing anti-town even if they're not scum. Once you've got a really solid town, scum can't escape.
Also, I'm not sure about game claiming because I feel like it will be more helpful to scum than town. As you said, it's not alignment-indicative, but I do think the games probably have something to do with the nature of the PRs.
- awesomeusername
- awesomeusername
-
awesomeusername
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 376
- Joined: January 6, 2014
- Location: awesomelocation
Sorry for the triple post, but this actually makes sense now that I think about it. People who generally look scummy don't want town to just lynch scummy-looking people because then they'll be lynched, and people who are pretty good at looking pro-town think all town should be, and support the charter.In post 88, awesomeusername wrote:There seems to be a correlation between people supporting the charter and people being town-read (maybe I'm just projecting my own reads, but I think this is true for others as well). This was something the original charter entailed anyway, but I sorta feel like my reads are being skewed and I don't like it.
Posting at work so forgive my brevity and ignorance of some of the particulars.
Tammy's(I think?) post about the charter getting rid of the activities she usually uses made me think of something: What if the charter was not only a code of behavior, but also described a course of actions and responsibilities? We could design it, for example, to force every player to do certain things and/or have us plan our course of action: A specific example or two:
-Each player must provide a complete reads list every X days/posts.
-On day 1, the players will lynch the person with the lowest number of posts.
-At the beginning of day 2, the 3 top scumreads will be debated in open forum to determine the lynch.
Someone else pointed out that the charter wouldn't be set in stone. Of course negotiating and altering these things would also give us reads.
Tammy's(I think?) post about the charter getting rid of the activities she usually uses made me think of something: What if the charter was not only a code of behavior, but also described a course of actions and responsibilities? We could design it, for example, to force every player to do certain things and/or have us plan our course of action: A specific example or two:
-Each player must provide a complete reads list every X days/posts.
-On day 1, the players will lynch the person with the lowest number of posts.
-At the beginning of day 2, the 3 top scumreads will be debated in open forum to determine the lynch.
Someone else pointed out that the charter wouldn't be set in stone. Of course negotiating and altering these things would also give us reads.
worse than random
FOS: EVERYONE!
Also I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever used the lame fos, so.
So, I kinda skimmed along while at work today and after getting frustrated, I went for a nice long swim. Which is awesome when I'm frustrated because it does wonders for my swim speed, but I was still frustrated when leaving the pool and that's just not good.
Here's the problem. All of you are just talking the magna carta redux. And talking about the charter, no matter what position you take, is the most alignment irrelevant thing. It's not scumhunting. You can't actually get an accurate read on someone based on whether or not they agreed with the charter. I'm especially disappointed with the morph hydra for actually admitting that they have early town reads on the people who agrees with the charter. Like that is the most shallow of "scumhunting" there is.
~~~~
Oh but this is super cute. (And I don't mean this in a condescending way, I mean this in the I just wanted to give you a hug way, and hug reads are golden:
I just want to give you a big ol townread for this right here. Just because I'm not sure I see scum going "I feel like my reads are being skewed and I don't like it." Also user, your conclusion about people who are pretty good at looking pro-town support the charter isn't correct. I'm really good at looking town when I'm town. It's my best asset as town; it's also my hydra partners best asset as town. Neither one of us support the charter.In post 89, awesomeusername wrote:Sorry for the triple post, but this actually makes sense now that I think about it. People who generally look scummy don't want town to just lynch scummy-looking people because then they'll be lynched, and people who are pretty good at looking pro-town think all town should be, and support the charter.In post 88, awesomeusername wrote:There seems to be a correlation between people supporting the charter and people being town-read (maybe I'm just projecting my own reads, but I think this is true for others as well). This was something the original charter entailed anyway, but I sorta feel like my reads are being skewed and I don't like it.
~~~~
Huh, I guess that fos should be reduced a little and is maybe a little too exaggerative. Mainly my big problem is that you guys have taken the first few pages of the game from me. And yes, I'm completely self-absorbed and everything revolves around me and my take on the game. I can usually get a few pretty decent reads early game, have people I lean town on or those I want to push and shake out, but because everyone is just mainly talking about the charter, I CAN'T. I was leaning town on the morph hydra last night based on what looked like some early good pushing to see where people lie, but now I've just dipped into paranoid territory where they're concerned. I'm not sure that I like the immediate call to bald eagle being a lurk sack townie when I asked how much experience they had with him. My concern and why I asked was because it looked to me like he could be giving a preemptive too early townread on the Morph hydra. If he didn't have much experience with them, how can he have a meta read on them already?
Morph - why did you just offer up that he was a lurksack townie? I guess the thing that bothers me the most about offering that up is that the game is now in the context of the charter and the charter deemed to get rid of lurkers, so now you've put an image of the type of player he is that is contrary to what has been decided is protown this game. He certainly hasn't been completely active in all his games recently, but in Zach's game he was low activity but had decent reads.
I think I probably just hate posts 73 and 74. I mean I get it that cabd is really proud of his scum game, but part of me feels like he's being arrogant about it in that kind of yeah this isn't going to happen to my scum team here because I'm just that good at scum and ffery is pointing out that his statement is actually not relevant at all (it wasn't) in a kind of wrist-slapping way because he might just be going too far and getting them into trouble. I don't even know how much I even believe this because I've liked quite a bit of ffery's posting, but it's there, and I still think the defaulting to town reading people liking the charter is really shallow because it's an easy position scum can take. (not the liking people who like the charter, but liking the charter itself.)
And that brings me to porkens, who I'd really love to write off as town right now, but the thing is that he could have totally thought of the charter before had and just decided to keep it. And my main problem with porkens is that he hasn't discussed anything BUT the charter, and pedit no I absolutely will not giving updated reads lists on a regular basis, you're lucky is you get one of those from me a game. I will give reads on people as I have them. And I'm not going to vote to lynch the person with the lowest number of posts. I will vote for who I think is scum. Like seriously can we pretty please with cherries, sprinkles, hot fudge, bananas, and hey I'll throw in pickles if you fancy that kind of thing, please please please stop focusing on the charter? I feel like I signed up for a mafia theory game when I signed up for a mafia game and nobody is actually playing mafia.
The only person who has really approached the way that people reacted to the charter with any sense of depth is spyspy and I'm not going to just call him town from that because he's capable of putting out what he has so far as scum. HOWEVER, he feels a little bit different from his replace in posts in faraday's upick, but he was also a replacement and I think I remember him saying that he didn't have as much time to put into it as he would have liked. But his reads list gave me little warm fuzzies because it looked like he was actually looking at the motivation of the people.
Oh I liked kdub too, but that just might be because he came at this from a similar line of thinking as my own and that just makes me as shallow as I complained others were. I'm a hypocrite, I know.
Who knows, maybe when I get home from work and can really look at what people have said again, I'll find something I can shake out or hug, but right now I can't and it's frustrating and yeah I just needed to vent.
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
You actually have that backwards. 73 was ffery. 74 was cabd.In post 93, Hadrian wrote:I think I probably just hate posts 73 and 74. I mean I get it that cabd is really proud of his scum game, but part of me feels like he's being arrogant about it in that kind of yeah this isn't going to happen to my scum team here because I'm just that good at scum and ffery is pointing out that his statement is actually not relevant at all (it wasn't) in a kind of wrist-slapping way because he might just be going too far and getting them into trouble. I don't even know how much I even believe this because I've liked quite a bit of ffery's posting, but it's there, and I still think the defaulting to town reading people liking the charter is really shallow because it's an easy position scum can take. (not the liking people who like the charter, but liking the charter itself.)
- morph the cat
- morph the cat
-
morph the cat
- Sync Achieved
- Sync Achieved
- Posts: 8828
- Joined: July 14, 2013
I don't think this is a good idea. Why risk giving scum any more information?In post 86, LastManStanding wrote:How about each of us post the board game picks we made? It has no relevance on alignments but it could be useful (and fun?) to see.
(Dominion is a fun game though! Wish I knew more people who played so I could actually play it regularly.)
Tammy and I are both pretty good at looking pro-town. I think looking pro-town is the most important thing town can do. I don't support the charter. (I mean, IIn post 89, awesomeusername wrote:People who generally look scummy don't want town to just lynch scummy-looking people because then they'll be lynched, and people who are pretty good at looking pro-town think all town should be, and support the charter.
would
if the charter just said "We pledge not to be fake-claiming, gambiting, useless, self-absorbed anti-town lurkers and to try to look as townie as we possibly can", but it says rather more than that.)These seem like reallyIn post 90, Porkens wrote:We could design it, for example, to force every player to do certain things and/or have us plan our course of action: A specific example or two:
-Each player must provide a complete reads list every X days/posts.
-On day 1, the players will lynch the person with the lowest number of posts.
-At the beginning of day 2, the 3 top scumreads will be debated in open forum to determine the lynch.
bad
things to do. People shouldn't give new reads after a certain number of days just to "give reads". Agreeing to lynch the lowest poster on day 1 just encourages people to spam, which happens too much on day 1 anyway. I don't even understand the last one. Aren't we already going to "debate our scumreads in open forum"? What do we gain by limiting this to a "top 3", and how could we possibly do this in any case?~ Plessiez