adaliabooks: @Bookwyrm
It's scary how well you get me, if I didn't know better I'd think we were alts ;)

Bookwyrm627: How do you know we don't have a cult in this game? I'll grant that it doesn't seem to fit the flavor, but do we have any proof to that effect?

Lifthrasil: No hard proof. But it is known that Cult games are shit and next to impossible to balance. So I am sure Yogs wouldn't run a game like that.

Bookwyrm627: Barring evidence to the contrary, this is good enough to me.

As for Adalia as a potential lynch: I've already said I don't like his lack of concern about hitting townies instead of scum, but I'm not willing to lynch him over it yet. The weight on the "Don't Lynch" side of the scale is that I don't want to discourage people from putting out potentially risky suggestions on Day 1; we have to start somewhere if we're going to avoid an inconsequential lynch. Feeling like I understood his logic for everyone putting a vote somewhere is probably also influencing my judgement.

trentonlf: According to what adaliabooks is saying and you agree with there is no inconsequential lynch, so don't use that as an excuse. You can't say in one instance any lynch is a good lynch and in another say there are inconsequential lynches.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with presenting ideas on day one, or any day for that matter. What I find wrong in this situation is how adaliabooks is acting.

trentonlf: Your grand plan was to pick a random player and apply votes to them so they would feel the pressure and possibly make a slip if they are scum, yet now you don't vote to apply pressure but to only lynch? And your vote at the moment is on flub in hopes that others will vote for him and he feels the pressure? So you don't want to vote now for applying pressure but to lynch, yet you want others to vote to apply pressure. And your vote is on someone who you are not sure is scum or not and the people you feel might be scum you don't want to vote for because it might reveal too much of your hand.

That is a convoluted mess, so many times you are contradicting yourself. You just want to kill someone so info can be gained regardless of them being scum or not, and that is not a townie move at all to me.

This line "You say your not willing to lynch someone for 'the numbers' but by voting me that's exactly what you're doing" is laughable. I'm not voting for you because of some "numbers", I'm voting for you because of your behavior is scummy to me. Are you some exception that if I vote for you it has nothing to do with you being possible scum but only for some "numbers"?

HijacK: Cult games? Anyone?

Given that I've never played one, and this game is not the case for that setup, I'm assuming cult games work on the basis of recruiting instead of lynching, as far as the master goes.

bler144: Of the three names on the table atm, I would be most inclined to vote for CSP. However, like Trent I am second-guessing my reads quite a bit. There were lots of comments last game that I played well, but frankly I was primarily responsible for two of our biggest misplays, ironically one of which involved misreading CSP.

JMich: And before I forget, vote adaliabooks

Bookwyrm627: Wrong: there is such thing as an inconsequential or bad lynch. A completely random lynch is the easiest example: if we assign everyone a number and ask random.org which number should die, we don't get anything more than a flip (hopefully) from it. I don't think I've said that any lynch is a good lynch. Can you link me to where I've at least implied that?

What I agree with is Adalia's idea of people placing votes and we proceed from there. People should NOT be placing votes randomly, though they can place them for vague meta-based suspicion if there isn't anything else to go on. We assess reactions and the game proceeds apace. I guess this might be too much like RVS without the "don't place a second vote on someone" unwritten rule, but I've yet to hear a better suggestion for starting the game.

yogsloth: adailabooks – 4 (Leondard03, Lifthrasil, trentonlf, JMich)

trentonlf: I did not say there was no such thing as a bad lynch, I believe there are many times lynch's end up being bad ones. I said if you are agreeing with adaliabooks that any lynch is a good one because of the information gained then you can not use the excuse of not voting for fear of an inconsequential lynch. If you think there is a possibility of an inconsequential lynch why do you support what adaliabooks is saying?

Bookwyrm627: Ah, okay. Well, I don't agree with Adalia that just any old lynch is good because of information gained, so there is no problem there.

As to an inconsequential lynch: I don't think that's what Adalia was suggesting. I also think that if town have their collective brains working (ooo, third person reference to town! Scum tell scum tell!), then we won't have an inconsequential lynch because townies won't be using random.org to place votes. They'll use actual suspicions or some sort of reasoning to place votes.

trentonlf: I never said adalibooks suggested anything about an inconsequential lynch, it was you in this post. You were supporting adalibooks idea so there would not be an inconsequential lynch. adalibooks idea is that any lynch is a good lynch because of the information gained from it, and that negates any lynch being inconsequential. I was saying if you were backing adalibaooks idea that any lynch is a good lynch you could not say a lynch could be inconsequential.

You have explained it since then as you were not supporting that idea, but the idea of applying votes to put pressure on people to see how they react. Of course now adaliabooks is saying he is not putting votes on people to apply pressure, just to lynch them.

Bookwyrm627: I think I see where the confusion between you and me came in now. It appears to be more or less cleared up; do you agree with this assessment, or is there another point you want to ask about?

I'll comb through Adalia's posting again later, to see how much he's flip-flopped.

Bookwyrm627: Wyrm is similar to Adalia. Wyrm is similar to Yogsloth. Therefore Adalia is similar to Yogsloth. How does that make you feel? :D

-----

.......<woop woop woop snip>...........

JMich: 1) yog made the distinction between numbers and votes, possibly to account for double voters or vote blockers.
2) Any way they can. Killing is the easiest, but even if scum are prevented from killing, they can win.

JMich: Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Think of the Tres Leches game. There were two scum teams, and for quite a while, they were both hitting the same target. So one team was killing, the other wasn't. One team could win without ever killing anyone, though they would have to assist in the final lynch.

JMich: I don't. I count it as saying "Getting games on GOG depend on you having a credit card". While it will make it easier, it doesn't depend on the condition being true.

JMich: Again, killing is the easiest way for scum to get the win condition. It isn't the only way, nor does their win condition depend on them killing.
There are also a few cases when reaching parity doesn't mean the scum win (2v2, doctor+vigilante vs 2 grunts), in which case it does depend on the win condition. If win condition is the one yog gave us, then the game has ended, even though town could win it (protect NK target, vig scum, lynch other scum next day).
In all cases though, scum's usual win condition doesn't depend on killing, though killing does help them achieve it. Scum could have a win condition of "Make sure X is killed", in which case their win condition does depend on killing.

JMich: Oh my, not sure where to begin.
1) Town's "super power" isn't dying. Town's power is the vote. Vanillas' power is dying, but not to die. Dying to protect a town role. A vanilla that is lynched has not used its power properly, because it was a mislynch. A vanilla that was night killed has used its power properly, because they died instead of a role.
2) Scum can afford to die, if it gives them a tactical advantage. Said advantage usually is appearing town, so a scum is safe from scrutiny.

JMich: Funny, other people have said that with each death, town gets a step closer to losing. Math and all that.

JMich: Scum are not going to stir waters, ergo anyone that does cannot be scum. If I stir the waters, I can't be scum. Apply WIFOM to that, and ask yourself whether scum would stir the waters.

JMich: You stand to gain being seen as town. You stand to lose being lynched. If you are going to be lynched (and are scum), you hope your team mates will be smart enough to bus you, thus having them appear town as well.

JMich: You stand to gain some discussion, and hopefully the players do something. You stand to be lynched, costing the town either a power role, or a vanilla that could have drawn a night kill.

And before I forget, vote adaliabooks