I have two reactions to that

1) Awesome. A vote. It was going to be pretty tedious if we spent the first half of the day just arguing mechanics and metagame. Voting is good. Voting me not as good, but we can work with it :P

2) I think you are misunderstanding what I said. I am certainly opposed to "random" voting. What would be the point of that? I am in favor of voting for and lynching people who you think are wolfy.

When I mention the odds are not necessarily that great for actually getting a wolf, I'm stating it in response to the implication made previously that lynching is not good because we may lynch a villager. I'm saying: That is true, but we should lynch anyway, despite the fact that it is true. I'm saying that while certainly a villager is more likely, on average, to be lynched on d1 than a wolf, nevertheless d1 wolf lynches are possible and something we should strive for.

This is not wishy-washy, this is an attempt to say that the apparent and actual difficulty of lynching a wolf on d1 should not be taken as an excuse not to try. Everyone should vote every day, and they should vote for players they think are the most likely wolves, and they should try to make the reasons for their votes as transparent as they can

Looks like that quote got fudged. Apologies all.

Fantastic. I mean I didn't vote for you or anything, just bolded your name, but yeah I appreciate the response.

On our site we're about a few levels down with the whole D1 random lynch talk. Old school, someone calling it random and using a randomizer got voted like nobody's business. Then that became an opportunistic vote by the evil and they also knew to avoid it. Then we started voting on people that voted on people for D1 random talk/votes. We're still around there I think. Sort of vacillates.

But regardless of any sort of consistency there, variable elements always make it difficult because who knows with certain individuals, new people and in this game different cultures, certainly.

One thing I already foresee being difficult in this game is that to some degree everyone will be more careful with their posts, because we're in the company of people we haven't played with and the game is called "champions." I don't know...folks just don't want to look stupid I presume. That sort of infiltrates the reads of evil being more careful with posting. But in some ways it can work in our favor, too, because I think a degree of discomfort overall is helpful with all the other factors of reads, etc.

Well that's difficult. Your 1) is a pretty nice towntell to me, but what I have relabeled as 2) is soo wishy-washy that it isn't. Mainly for the bolded words.

VE: Also you are confused about two different usages of the word rand. I never even mentioned the idea of picking a lynch at rand. The idea didn't even occur to me.

When I said there was no reason to expect a lynch to be random, I meant there was no reason to expect that the EV of a d1 lynch was exactly the same as the distribution of roles, which is what "rand" often means in POG. If I say right now cphoya is rand to be a villager, I mean that the weighted probabilities I assign to his actual role is the same as the pre-game distribution of wolves and villagers. That is, I'm saying I have no information that inclines me to believe he is either more likely or less likely to be a wolf than anyone else.

When I say that that we are more likely to lynch a wolf then a villager, I mean that even accounting for player skill where the person we pick to lynch is more likely than random chance to be a wolf, the probability of a wolf lynch on d1 probably doesn't exceed 50% on average. But a random lynch is probably 22-26% depending on the distribution of roles, which is unknown.

I'm sorry for delving too much into mechanics already but this is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I said the hardest part of wolf hunting in this format is understanding what people mean and when they are being sincere. You took something I said for waffling when in fact you simply didn't understand it

Can you elaborate on how reacting to a vote that never happened by simply acknowledging is a towntell to you?

I suppose it is. I'm not universally opposed to it, but I wouldn't do it now. I like this particular fence.

FYI: on this forum, and I assume in this game given it's being modded by timelady, bolding a player's name is a vote. You are currently voting for me.

Yeah that went WAAAAY over my head. When I say "random lynch" I mean picking a target at random and lynching the **** out of it. So clearly there's a misunderstanding.

Cool! Not intended but it works for now. Where I come from we bold for emphasis and use "##Vote: (player)" to vote. Good to know.

VE is actually smarter as scum than town. Nothing to worry about here.

[QUOTE=Darthe;40624643]Morning.

You mention that D1 tends to backfire where you come from. Where I come from we catch mafia about half the time on D1 (we play a better town game). Would you anticipate things being different here based on the new player pool or is voting still an uncomfortable notion? Also, I would argue that with more active roles that it is more important how we play. Each of those is a resource that has been balanced into the game and is intended to be utelized. That can't be wasted by any recklessness.

To be honest, I'm a bit torn between doing what got me here or adapting a bit to new players/playstyle. Different general set ups typically cause a need to alter gameplay. So knowing me, I'll prolly have a few drinks tonight for the football(NFL) game, spin my bottle around and follow the direction the booze takes me. I can't change everything about how I play. Hahaha.

...and Yamato is actually a jerk regardless of alignment so similarly nothing to worry about here.

<3

Wow, I quote-failed that bad somehow.

So how do I unvote, for like future reference?

if you quote a post with a broken quote the quotes will continue to be broken.

It appears to be caused by putting a bold closing tag between the [ and / in the closing quote tag.

Never unvote. Just move on to the next wolf candidate imo

OH MAN that's gotta be annoying for the mods...

All right, I've gotta change like EVERYTHING about how I play. This should be exciting.

Well named, what do you think this interaction says about the alignment of VE?

Yeah, I like to get into the psych of situations. First, apparently the vote did actually happen but that is probably irrelevant to the point here. Here is what Well Named said:

"Awesome. A vote. It was going to be pretty tedious if we spent the first half of the day just arguing mechanics and metagame. Voting is good. Voting me not as good, but we can work with it :P"


Before I get into this I should mention that I have a hypothesis that people tend to be a bit looser in early game, just getting into their roles and functions and so often they let things slip by that would not otherwise be a considerable read. It has worked so far and tends to allow me to build a quick basis for town/scum reads.

While the "awesome. a vote." bit is slightly on the glib side the tone of this entire post is lighthearted and a bit mocking, both natures that you don't often see from early-game scum. Reasoning is that early mafia is excited about a role, preparing to dig into the game, wants to set themselves up for later and so their early focus is strategy. You aren't getting that here, as a matter of fact we nearly get the opposite.

Specific word choices jump out to change the inflection of the post, where he calls things thus far "pretty tedious" is good because it, combined with the word "just" in the same sentence breaks the flow of his structure, shows that the player is relaxed and simply making a statement of his views without much consideration for what he posts. I could carry on with this but it seems unnecessary to break down a sentence simply to state what I already have with this example.

Btw, thanks for the quoting advice. Getting use to the buttons here is going to be odd.

Can we swear on this site and post bad gifs etc?

I think it looks villagery for him. He came in voicing suspicion according to reasons that seem like they would have made sense to him, even if they were wrong, and he did so in a way that seems innocent and genuine to me.

I managing to get talked to about swearing within...oh...2 hours of joining? But it was more cause I was asterisking one letter instead of letting the word blocker edit them out. Not sure about gifs.

Some sites have multiple players so I'd be interested in these players giving tips about their comrades (2+2, TL, BGG, etc)

I'm with TommyDanger who's a good chap. Tends to be fun-loving, very involved (though may take time to getting up to speed over here), theatrical, and fairly brazen with his thoughts. Pretty logical, but can easily get false positived because he tends to always have too much assurance. Usually his activity gets by this though and it's in a good natured way so I wouldn't say it's lynch bait.

Not easy to catch evil Tommy, but I think evil Tommy is assured through and through. There's a little hole in good Tommy deep down there that says "what if I'm wrong." I think that's the main difference. Pretty typical though in finding evil players though overall.