Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 80

Author Topic: Supernatural 7 - Game over - Town Win!  (Read 183872 times)

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure his!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #330 on: June 13, 2014, 12:24:59 pm »

Jim: What is the difference, for you, between a null read and a neutral read?

Ottofar: What is your current case against Jim?  Do you believe his reads are wrong?

Ottofar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wait, spinning?
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #331 on: June 13, 2014, 12:31:25 pm »

Ottofar: What is your current case against Jim?  Do you believe his reads are wrong?

Being absent, then voting the guy calling him out on it, even though it was reasoned well enough. Also, there was something with Toaster, but I don't exactly remember what it was. I'll read back soonish. I don't really disagree with his reads.

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure his!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #332 on: June 13, 2014, 12:49:09 pm »

Toaster:
You haven't said anything this morning despite posting in other threads several times.  Who do you think is the most suspicious player right now.

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - The Council of 13
« Reply #333 on: June 13, 2014, 01:12:59 pm »

@4maskwolf:
Am I seriously the only one who plans, as a survivor, to work on Town's side always?
Yep.
Nope.
Bullshit. Play to your wincon. A scum player doesn't betray his team and reveal them at the start does he?
This sounds remarkably like "my fun is more important than your fun" to me.  I can play however I like, thanks.  There are certain social norms governing the scum, but if I was a loner third-party survivor then I wouldn't have any strictures on how I play.  I could claim day one if I wanted to.
I can't control what you do, but I wouldn't want a player on my side who isn't playing to win. I suppose a completely third-party player could do whatever the hell they want though. Not that I would support that at all.

Toony: When you get back from drinking with your buddies, could you give us your reads.  Thanks.
Sure.

Scum

4maskwolf - just as hyper as IG but has nothing to show for it, super defensive and reactive, doesn't believe IG's claim either I think? It depends on the weather.
zombie urist - same play as usual, could easily be scum from my experience playing games with him
Ottofar - same as ZU
notquitethere - feels on edge, just as protective as 4maskwolf, I don't suspect him enough right now to lynch this day
Tiruin - seems halfhearted, could just be busy
Jim Groovester - same as Tiruin
Imperial Guardsman - very likely a third-party like he claims, has a 50% revive so he's like a priest we can't trust or rely on, posts way too much
Toaster - nothing exceedingly suspicious, doesn't believe IG's claim
flabort - probably town power role, probably gonna die
Jack A T - haven't had a problem with any of his posts, no scum reads
Jiokuy - seems genuine, no issues yet
Persus13 - same as Jack A T

Not Scum


This is directed at Toaster, however:
Toaster:
You haven't said anything this morning despite posting in other threads several times.  Who do you think is the most suspicious player right now.
Calm

Down.

Deep

Breaths.

Some people (like me) only have time to read the thread and make a post once a day.



@JimBot:
I got angry at Imperial Guardsman because I was having terrible flash backs to Witches' Coven. That really hurt the game flow and the game's enjoyment was dampened quite a bit for me.



I have a forewarning. I'll be away for the weekend in a place with no Wi-Fi. I don't think I'll be able to post on Saturday or Sunday.
Logged

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure his!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - The Council of 13
« Reply #334 on: June 13, 2014, 01:22:53 pm »

4maskwolf - [1]just as hyper as IG but has [2]nothing to show for it, [3]super defensive and reactive, [4]doesn't believe IG's claim either I think? [5]It depends on the weather.
[1]Assuming you're talking about my post count, is there a problem with posting a lot?
[2]Other than my scumhunting, you mean?
[3]Would you rather I rolled over and gotten lynched?
[4a]I actually do believe his claim of third party
[4b]And it matters if I believe him why?
[5]Wut?

Now, Toony: you are listing two people who have posted very little over someone who you actually have a complaint with on your scumminess meter.  Why is that?  Trying to make it seem that NQT isn't a big threat?

flabort

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still a demilich, despite the 4e and 5e nerfs
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - The Council of 13
« Reply #335 on: June 13, 2014, 01:35:05 pm »


Because I'm relying too much on an aggregate and not enough on concrete evidence.
flabort: And how do you intend to fix this?
By paying more attention to WHY my scumometer says what it does, by going back and reviewing everyone's posts and my own notes.
By reading each new post even more thoroughly, and going back and reading the quoted posts more thoroughly, and the posts quoted there more, etc.
By finding concrete evidence rather than saying stuff like "I'm too lazy to find the quote, but I think you said this" (boy did that one ever go wrong :P).

It's not all that I have on him, however, I'd have to go over my notes and cross-reference them in order to form a concise thought.
And he's slowly turning that rating around now.

What? How?

Quote
Wow that's a weak case. Unvote.

I agree with you that your case on Toaster was weak. Why did you vote him in the first place?
Because my scum-finding tool, which we have determined to be flawed, said to. Right now it wants me to go after ToonyMan and IG, but obviously I've got nothing on Toony yet, and IG has been all but confirmed to be benign third party.
Quote
Toaster, maybe, but my case on him is too weak to pursue.

So you suspect Toaster but you don't have enough dirt on him to justify a vote? Or is it because you fear reprisal if you do vote him? From your posts it sounds more like the latter.
Mostly the former.

Quote
I have to say I'm neutral on the NQT vs Toaster argument: if someone got mislynched, I'd feel it would be partially my fault, but mostly the fault of whomever I suspect of being scum and/or is voting the lynchee.
Meaning, I agree with NQT that everyone has a hand in mislynching, but not everyone is quite as to blame as the people who push everyone else into the lynch.

I don't understand why you are weighing in.
Because it is a relevant and current conversation, that isn't the same tired out "Is IG scum" conversation.

If someone got mislynched, I'd feel it would be partially my fault, but mostly the fault of whomever I suspect of being scum and/or is voting the lynchee.
Have you ever lynched town before? The first one is always the hardest.
Yes. And, as a (at least partially) puzzler style player, I kick myself each time it happens.

Logged
The Cyan Menace

Went away for a while, came back, went away for a while, and back for now.

flabort

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still a demilich, despite the 4e and 5e nerfs
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #336 on: June 13, 2014, 01:36:12 pm »

Darn it, missed filling in one response.
By actually working with the town now. He's still in the red, but not as bad.
But as the tool has been proven to be flawed...
Logged
The Cyan Menace

Went away for a while, came back, went away for a while, and back for now.

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #337 on: June 13, 2014, 02:18:27 pm »

Jiokuy:
Ugh, Including myself we have ~5 active lurkers. The 3-4 people who are scum hunting...

So what do you call the rest of the players?


Tiruin:
unvote

If you weren't up for replacement I'd give you hell over this.


NQT:
This makes me enthusiastic, but it doesn't make me scum.

There's enthusiasm, then there's tripping over yourself to do it.

Sure, getting people to talk is good, but I don't trust where you are going with this.  It almost looks like you're setting up to drive a mislynch on someone D2 if they're on a mislynch today, especially the underlined bit in the quote above.
Obviously not everyone who mislynches someone is goign to be scum. No, nothing like that. I'm more interested in looking at reactions and things should scum flip. Who was in favour of doing what, etc. My day 1 technique has been to try to elicit as much useful information to mine if necessary on future days. I also hope that we lynch scum today, and by making everyone aware of who is going to be lynched at any given moment, I hope for a more considered lynch than often occurs.

You're practically pointing the finger at everyone; both those on a theoretical mislynch and everyone else not voting enough for actual scum.  That's over the line, in my book.

I can see how you might think any of this is poor play, but I'm not sure how you're jumping from that to thinking it's a particularly scum play. I almost always play in ways people disagree with: am I scum in every game?

Don't strawman me.

I'm not trying to equalise the blame: but point out that all of town allows mislynches to happen when they don't press more compelling cases.

Oh wait; that is exactly what you're saying.

The caveat to this is that before the end of the day, I'll always switch to the most scummiest player regardless; unless I need to break a tie, in which I'll vote whichever of the tied candidates is most suspicious.

So to whom are you going to switch?


Ottofar:
Also, I'd like to have IG live the day, we know everything about him, so his death wouldn't be too informational. He's a good vig target, though.

Why do you think he's holding nothing back?  I certainly agree he isn't town, and that it's likely he's third party, but I'm not at all convinced everything he's said is on the up and up.


Persus:
With that said. I'm really curious about the "bad stuff" IG said his revive had a 50% chance of stirring up. Why again would we even consider taking the risk of letting something out?
Priest revives have a chance of reviving a player as an SK. I assume IG has something similar if he's a third-party.

Not just SK; I got raised as a survivor once.  (I had to claim it too, and then got immediately lynched over it.  Survivors get it easy these days, mumble grumble)


4mask:
Toaster:
You haven't said anything this morning despite posting in other threads several times.  Who do you think is the most suspicious player right now.

Mafia takes a much larger time commitment per post.

NQT, which is why I'm voting him.  I think the why should be obvious from above and previous exchanges with him.


Flabort:  It's okay to have gut feelings of distrust of someone, but be prepared to back them up if you act on them.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

Persus13

  • Bay Watcher
  • 6th King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #338 on: June 13, 2014, 02:38:39 pm »

I havent seen a supernatural with 2 thirds, and theres a 1/3 chance of Werewolves. The other two and the only other two I have seen are Vampires ( who can cult ) and Cultists
Supernatural 1 had two third parties.

Will post more later. RL stuff. Also, I have graduation plus the related celebrations and visiting relatives over the weekend, so don't expect much from me this weekend.
Logged
Congratulations Persus, now you are forced to have the same personal text for an entire year!
Longbowmen horsearcher doomstacks that suffer no attrition and can navigate all major rivers without ships.
Sigtext

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #339 on: June 13, 2014, 02:42:22 pm »

So did 3 (Necromancer SK and Wererat Survivor) and 4 (Guardian Angel and Devil).  Really, 6 was the unusual one with no third parties.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #340 on: June 13, 2014, 03:20:25 pm »

Toaster
You're practically pointing the finger at everyone; both those on a theoretical mislynch and everyone else not voting enough for actual scum.  That's over the line, in my book.
It's my job in this game to suspect everyone and my tactic is to coax substance from every player. If someone is lynched by only three votes and there are 13 players, then nine players didn't believe in that lynch and let it happen because they didn't organise themselves against it. I held this before the game and I'm going to have the exact same position on this when we finish the game, how does this position make me scum? Please, spell it out for all of us.

I can see how you might think any of this is poor play, but I'm not sure how you're jumping from that to thinking it's a particularly scum play. I almost always play in ways people disagree with: am I scum in every game?
Don't strawman me.
Well present an actual case!

I'm not trying to equalise the blame: but point out that all of town allows mislynches to happen when they don't press more compelling cases.
Oh wait; that is exactly what you're saying.
There's a difference between 'equalising the blame' and holding people accountable. You can see that, right?

The caveat to this is that before the end of the day, I'll always switch to the most scummiest player regardless; unless I need to break a tie, in which I'll vote whichever of the tied candidates is most suspicious.
So to whom are you going to switch?
I find ZU the scummiest right now, I'll reassess things as the days go on and we'll see where I get to on Monday when the deadline hits.

You're not exactly convincing me that you've got much of a grasp on the game:
And that read list I said I'd give:

Scummy, roughly most to least:
NQT
IG *More for his claim.  I really do not trust it.  His play is... spastic.
You, a bit, for spreading bullshit
Something about Jiokuy bugs me a bit, but I'm not sure what.

Townish read:
...Nobody, really. Everyone else hovers around null (or hasn't posted enough to give a read [Tiruin, Jim, ZU])
Do you intend to form more substantial read by the end of the day?
Logged

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure his!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #341 on: June 13, 2014, 03:33:08 pm »

It's my job in this game to suspect everyone and my tactic is to coax substance from every player. If someone is lynched by only three votes and there are 13 players, then nine players didn't believe in that lynch and let it happen because they didn't organise themselves against it. I held this before the game and I'm going to have the exact same position on this when we finish the game, how does this position make me scum? Please, spell it out for all of us.
This is my point of view on the matter.  Not on how it makes you scum, but on why I don't agree with that view.
People not voting for someone does not necessarily mean they don't want that person lynched, though.  Even townies sometimes shy away from joining what could be perceived later as a bandwagon, particularly close to day end, even if they thought that person was scum.  There are also cases where people don't know who to lynch, so they don't cast their vote by the end of the day.  This is particularly prevalent on Day One, where there is little to no information to go on.  If they don't smell anything fishy or see anything wrong with the points of others, but don't find them convincing enough for a vote or, as is also possible, are trying to avoid accusations of bandwagoning, so they stay away from the vote.

One of the things that bugs me about the way I see a lot of you all think about the game is that there seems to be this belief that a townie shouldn't care about being seen as scum, because they have nothing to hide.  There are certain times when this is true, but by performing any action (like perceived bandwagoning) that could be seen as scummy often leads to a mislynch of them, which they also don't want.  So townies are stuck in this double-standard, where they are told not to worry as much about looking slightly scummy and yet are held accountable for accidentally drawing the wrath of the town and getting themselves lynched.  For example, what if someone delivered the hammer vote (in a game with hammers) on what they believed were excellent grounds, but were judged later as being faulty and misguided.  That player is going to have a hell of a time not being lynched as an overeager scum, particularly if they are perceived as new or inexperienced (even though they might have a firm grasp on the game).  I say particularly for those perceived as new or inexperienced because it is easy to jump to the conclusion that "oh, yeah, their just being a silly newb scum", whereas someone deemed "experienced" will often at least be given a fair hearing.

Sorry, just my two cents on the issue.  That went on longer than I had intended.

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #342 on: June 13, 2014, 04:45:55 pm »

Instead, Unvote IG, Vote Jim. How come you focus on that one guy that's voting you?

I voted the guy with the least impressive game, in my opinion. The vote on me is incidental.

Being absent

Apparently being legitimately absent makes me scummy.

Jim
If you believe IG's claim, then why don't you believe the part about Flabort's innocence?

It would be the easiest part to fake and arguably the most important. And Imperial Guardsman has shown that he is willing to attempt ploys and duplicities.

Sometimes. In Prince of the Mafia he's helped lynch/kill scum with some impressive reasoning. But I feel his claim isn't completely competent because I reread the thread, and noticed his past vote wasn't consistent with his claim.

Do you think he's capable of deliberately using WIFOM to his advantage? Or, at the very least, attempting to do so?

and IG has been all but confirmed to be benign third party.

I'm not so sure about this part but whatever.

Because it is a relevant and current conversation, that isn't the same tired out "Is IG scum" conversation.

Does weighing in affect your read of either of the players involved? Does stating your opinion of either of them affect who you are going to vote?

Jim: What is the difference, for you, between a null read and a neutral read?

Null ----> No read; either not enough information or present information does not provide good enough indication for a read on alignment
Neutral ----> Done scummy and towny stuff in equal parts

NQT, which is why I'm voting him.  I think the why should be obvious from above and previous exchanges with him.

Maybe it is but could you summarize for me anyway?
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

Jack A T

  • Bay Watcher
  • Mafia is What Players Make of It
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #343 on: June 14, 2014, 03:50:13 am »

One of the things that bugs me about the way I see a lot of you all think about the game is that there seems to be this belief that a townie shouldn't care about being seen as scum, because they have nothing to hide.
4maskwolf:
Spoiler: Theory stuff spoiler (click to show/hide)

But now that I've delivered on my promise of reads [...] can you see that my apparent double-standards weren't really double-standards?
notquitethere: Considering it took Persus requesting reads and pointing out your lack of explicit thoughts for you to even promise said reads, and the fact that you were under significant fire for your relevant behaviour when you finally bothered to give your thoughts on the game, the fact that you finally gave reads is not nearly as helpful to you here as you seem to think it is.
[...] and am commenting on the case against the lynch candidate (myself), can you see that my apparent double-standards weren't really double-standards?
... you can't be fucking serious.
You're right that in asking things of others I should have been leading from the front, but is this kind of mistake a specifically scum mistake?
When transparency and making sure that everyone, including scum, comments on likely lynches are your asserted goals, and you are opaque and avoid commenting, there is clearly something wrong.  While town is quite capable of doing just about every scummy act ever identified (I don't think I've ever seen town claim scum, but that's about all that they haven't done at some point in some game here), you were not merely failing to lead from the front.  You were staying silent as to your opinions, taking no stance but that others should take stances.

notquitethere: Your top scum pick is a guy who was voting you because he was just posting from his phone?
Persus13: As much as I lean towards NQT being scum, I fail to see how voting reasons that include "Only his very last post shows any sort of sliver of proactive engagement" equal a case purely for zombie urist posting from his phone.  This seems like a bit of a stretch.  Please explain.

Why do you think he's holding nothing back?  I certainly agree he [IG] isn't town, and that it's likely he's third party, but I'm not at all convinced everything he's said is on the up and up.
Toaster: Interesting.  What parts of IGs statements do you least trust?

flabort: Alright.  My one piece of advice: remember that your spreadsheet is a tool for tracking your thoughts.  Do not let it become your thoughts, like it did earlier.
Logged
Quote from: Pandarsenic, BYOR 6.3 deadchat
FUCK YOU JACK
Quote from: Urist Imiknorris, Witches' Coven 2 Elfchat
YOU TRAITOROUS SWINE.
Screw you, Jack.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #344 on: June 14, 2014, 04:50:24 am »

Okay Jack, you're saying I was scummy because I didn't offer my own views when requiring views from others. I'm saying I didn't offer my views immediately because I'd intended to do it after sitting down and re-reading the thread. You're saying it looks like I only did that because I was pressured to. But I've been wholly consistent in this stance. When asked for reads by Persus, I gave my off-the-cuff thoughts and said this:

Before the day ends I'm intending to reread the thread and give my full reads on all players. But here's how I see things so far:

Which I later followed up with as was always my intentions. You prefer the narrative in which I, the wily scum, try to sit back and not give my opinions until coaxed by others. If that were my intention, why would I go about consistently bringing up the need for reads and reflections from others? Do you think I'd think no one would notice if I did none of that myself before the end of the day?

Also, could you give me your reads please?



ZU
Remember this?

ZU
nqt: if i needed to
Phone post. I've been there. Do you think you're going to be engaged enough with the game to be able to give your reads on Friday?
Probably.

Are you able to give your reads by Monday now?



Wolf, Tiruin (or her replacement), Jiokuy
Deadline hits Monday now. You going to use your vote before then? Jiokuy especially has yet to press a single lynching case yet.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 80