The saddest part of that is that I didn't read my Role PM until very late on D1

I guess that backfired...my "scummiest" posts were made when I was literally playing as a townie



Really glad Slendy got a WC slot. He definitely deserved it!

So I guess that's a bit like the assumed Fiction N0 peek on weareking...

It was "so obvious"...but it was still wrong

No worries! Actually I think it is nice to see the dedication to the game and to your forum-rep. And yes, the game is not an exact science, and ppl view it differently, so discussions will come up. As long as it is done in a productive way I think it benefit the mafiacommunity in general.

I think that the difference in effort used to follow games also affect the views on the players. That is kind of classic personal psychology (attribution theory), and therefore it makes it tough to compare players from different games. Even though one are aware of ones bias it is just a hard job.

I'm sad your forum feel cheated, but at least this shows how tight your forum stick together - that's something

Well put, road. I think 2Plus would be the first to admit it suffers a bit from it's own bias, as I'm sure we each do. The selection jurors, whom I applaud, seem to have largely been last year's champions, which championship favoured the 2Plus community to a large extent. They seem more accustomed to a 2-dimensional format that presents itself as simpler, logic-based play. Valiant efforts were taken to mitigate that favouritism this season and be a little more accommodating to more complex forms and modes, as well as more accepting of the variety of play of their invited guests. And they continue to self-correct for some past short comings in the natural developmental angst of such a worthy and gracious undertaking.

They're getting it better each season, but the nature of the beast is bound to accentuate certain play-styles and forms over others, a certain skill set over others, as well as the definition of the game with which 2Plus is more accustomed, to say little of the variety of expectation and guiding principles involved. I think several players threw the adjudicators a bit of a curve, and Phoenicks has been one of those.

I'd be down for this.

Tbf the the majority of the jurors are from different communities, and, while it seemed that last years finale favored one site, it was simply because we decided to stick around once we found out about this place thanks in large part to this series.

Also last years finale was voted by the players.

Thingy made a conscious effort to not only include last years finalists as he formed his jury but also to diversify as far as communities are concerned.

Thingy originiates from a Danish site before finding his way here.
I was one of Neoseekers reps in season one and since then have played games at POG, on VS and JTM
Tom and Cory originate from TMF and WF respectively and have played all over the place
jcohen was PTP's rep last year
murph was BGG's rep last year

Moocher and DW are the only ones who are original POGers.

Renaissance men represent

Well, original recipe POGers are more finger-lickin' good, if you ask me, on account of the same secret 11 herbs and spices the Colonel perfected in 1940. Fried Neoseekers taste like snake meat.

checking in

yeah almost all of the jurors were not native POG players, but reps from different communities that played here and stayed because POG is one of the best places on the internet to play wherewoalf

You can say THAT again.

THAT

I can't speak directly for the jurors, I only can say what I heard in the spectator chat and directly from Thingy which I omitted earlier, since it was intended to be kept out of it.

It is public now basically because people kept asking about it, and was revealed by Thingy, so I have no worries:

Phoenicks kicked himself out of contention by a long shot by peeking No Lynches after he claimed seer, in a situation where almost all if not all of the judges felt that demonstrated a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the game. A hard claim of seer gets murdered or is a wolf in 99.9% of the cases, so it is a wasted peek.

Road's peeks happened to be murdered twice, but I really made that happen on myself by my play, and it was not a lock that I was to be murdered before that, and I was not murdered that same night. My play after I was peeked (and I didn't know I was) was specifically designed to draw the murder onto me instead of the real seer. So Road can't be really faulted for that since I had not hard-claimed before I was peeked. QQ was also just a lucky shot by the wolves.

Phoenicks' seer picks were not as good, on a fundamental level. I say that with all respect for Phoenicks, and as his biggest fan here. I stayed up many a night comparing war stories with the guy. Really enjoy his company, in spite of not having played with him before.

People were under the impression that Phoenicks played a better game than he actually did, if I am interpreting what happened correctly, and the No Lynches peek in particular was a huge flaw in his game which wasn't originally acknowledged by anyone.

It is an objectively terrible peek and Phoenicks will admit that.

IMO it's not such a large deal, he still played the heck out of that game. It just meant that in certain judges' opinion, his game wasn't that great in that aspect, and another player did better overall in terms of their judgments.

I'd still say he should be considered as an alternate if someone can't show.

But there is one objectively true point that can be made why Phoenicks did not advance: He was not voted to advance by the players in his game, and he was not close to being advanced either, and the judges found fault with his seer picks, one of which was objectively very bad.

At that's saying he played a B game whereas someone else had maybe a B+ game by a fraction of a point. It's not even saying he did poorly, it just means it wasn't quite enough to be the unstoppable awesome player he appeared to be on first glance, but unknown to most, the peek choices weren't great.

If that doesn't settle the issue I am not sure anything ever will- surviving as a cop is not realistically important compared to making the right useful peeks. Objectively speaking, the coolkid peek by Road solved the game much more decisively than the No Lynches peek by Phoenicks.

That's not even an arguable point, in fact. Judges did a great job.

your passion, though.

^^

Fwiw it seems Phoenicks had not read the thread when he submitted his peek

A lot of factors went into the decision and one of the biggest, if not the biggest, was that the jurors in general didn't see much reason to disagree with the post-game votes and the wildcards are all very reflective of that.

So in essence, if ppl disagree with the jury, they also disagree with the players who played the games

A lot of ppl have approached several of the jurors, so I thought I'd make the above clear

It is regrettable, but also very predictable that a lot of truly great great players are getting snubbed, since these are all champions playing. I just hope ppl still enjoy(ed) the experience and most of all appreciate it for its true purpose: Cross-community bonding

Looks like I didn't scream loud enough about this point earlier in Skype chat, that I truly and sincerely find it terribly unfair to characterize the wildcard jury selection process, allowances, and criteria as equal to or reflective of that with which players of a single game were given. It's perhaps the most glaring flaw in this season's process as claimed and presented, and is completely untrue as a just comparison, 'excuse', or guiding principle.

Players were given a set of instructions which may have also guided the wildcard selection jury, which is admirable, but it seems as if you're purposefully penalising a player-set as they approach unity of choice in only 3 players among 13, where the wildcard selection jurors had allowance to choose far more players from a single game, and from among 55+ players from the entire series of games.

As presented, and I'm open to correction if wrong, you seem to be saying, "Hey, we jurors only (or primarily) went with what the games players told us to do". We players were NOT given any options for wildcard selections, either from our individual game or the series as a whole, not at the conclusion of our game or the series as a whole. I'm completely OK with that - I even think a wildcard selection jury needs to be 'above' the fray between actual game players - but please don't characterise the jury selections as essentially being the same as what players would have decided if given the same options. We were not given the same options.

It seems game 4 participants were a bit more unified in the top-3 option choice we were given for our game, and you seem to be saying, "shame on you for not continuing to further pick wildcards from your own game by better diversifying your top-3 choices for your individual game".

It's more like the player votes were factored into / added to reasonable justification for the wildcard picks

But it was one factor of many; kind of a sanity check

I'm not actually sure what you're saying but I don't think the severity of your tone is merited. Don't think any wrong was done here

Look, don't get all tonal with me, young dude, all I'm sayin' is that none of this would have happened if you had simply included a Talosian on the jury, maybe a Klingon, or if you had merely acquiesced to our call for your complete surrender when we sent Majiffy over. Lord Jiffy don't abide no Pokémon crap.

I am at work and don't have much time, but I feel the need to defend myself this far: I went rock climbing that day and submitted the night action at around 2 am with no time to properly read the last 5 pages I'd missed that popped up in the last ~10 minutes before deadline. (I was driving at the time.)

Later that night I saw that NL had been unvoted, which made him a perfect candidate for the strategy I'd been running. I would not have checked him if I'd seen the claim. (Which I did that morning.)

I lied about it when I revealed because I'd prepped much of that reveal in advance. I figured ahead of time that, so late in the game, I would probably have to fight a counterclaim, and me checking my counterclaim could have marred a claim that would win the game. I would do it again.

It is rather disappointing if that was the deciding reason, because there is nothing I would have done differently. I have to wonder why no one asked me. But I'm not too fussed about that -- it seems that that wasn't the main factor. We have different philosophies on how to play cop.

Since pizza is under the impression that I didn't play as good a game as others think I did, I will have to teach him a lesson sometime. ; )

Note

During these qualifying games if a replacement was needed, someone else was found from the same site. To be clear, that won't be the case in Game 6 (or the finale) - if someone goes inactive, one of the wildcard contenders (or someone from Game 6, if it happens in the finale) will be asked to sub in.

By the way, it's very awkward that we're doing this in the Game 5 thread. (Granted, it's awkward that we're doing it at all -- but I hope that the Game 5 players don't feel deprived of a proper endgame chat.)

GET OUTTA OUR THREAD YA THREADJACKERS!



(Jay kay. Knock yerselves out.)