• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 2964
Posts: 2964   Pages: 99   [ First Page | Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 279368 times and has 2963 replies Next Thread
AhoyLindsay

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 9, 2005
Posts: 3063
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Votes
Firebolt-1 MrBriney
Abstain-1 smileo
Smileo-2 Furare, Kotetsu
Kotetsu-1 Riku
MrBriney-1 master
Riku-1 Lotsofgoats

I also suspect Master for his sudden, imo ill-founded vote against MrBriney. Master had said that he did not think MrBriney was suspicious for his gut vote, but the next day voted him for hypocritical pressure voting. As others have said, I don't think that MrBriney's vote could be construed as a pressure vote at all, and master's explanations read as a stretch. While master could just have a different understanding of 'pressure vote', he could also have seen MrBriney as a convenient target, since others were also criticizing/suspecting him, and have hoped to jump in while avoiding attention.

Also related to MrB: Taelac, I understand why you don't like how MrBriney is playing, but I don't understand why you're suspicious of him (or are you no longer suspicious of him? I'm unclear). Unless he truly didn't think he would be called out on an unsupported vote, doing what he did as a rogue would not make sense.

I still suspect Jokerina as her posting has been noncommital. She's said that she agrees and disagrees with certain playing strategies (ex: agrees with pressure voting, disagrees with extrapolating from one's own playstyle), but she's declined to suspect anyone thus far and also declined to say whether she intends to abstain, vote, or not vote. This manner of posting would be advantageous for a rogue, because they can avoid taking hard stances and instead decide what opinion/action would be safe based on how the wind blows later on. Thus, FoS.
----------------------------------------
Castawayjoe of the Midnight Ocean.
To err is human, but to arr is pirate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Catharsis on Cobalt and Malachite.
[May 25, 2012 7:38:03 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
AhoyLindsay

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 9, 2005
Posts: 3063
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Sorry Tae, didn't catch that post you just made when I questioned whether you suspected him.
----------------------------------------
Castawayjoe of the Midnight Ocean.
To err is human, but to arr is pirate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Catharsis on Cobalt and Malachite.
[May 25, 2012 7:39:10 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Lotsofgoats

Member's Avatar


Joined: Apr 4, 2005
Posts: 10163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

If she's asking for his evidence or any real justification and then he has none, why is that suspicious of her? Because he already said that he has no evidence or real justification? That means she can't prod him about it? She hasn't even voted for him (by the way, somebody else has), so you're suspicious of her because she was questioning his complete lack of a solid reason to vote and then she acknowledged his justification without fully buying it.

I just... don't get it. I don't understand how any this makes you point things away from briney and towards taelac, and I don't at all see why you would do this without being a rogue.
----------------------------------------
I am Lotsofgoats and I approve this message.
[May 25, 2012 7:39:57 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
taelac

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 17, 2005
Posts: 3762
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

AhoyLindsay wrote: 
Sorry Tae, didn't catch that post you just made when I questioned whether you suspected him.

No worries. I'd have probably dropped all suspicion if it hadn't taken so long to get the clarification. I still have some suspicion because he had plenty of time from the first inquiry to the eventual answer to wait for help creating a plausible response if he is a rogue and really didn't have anything to go on. The reason I found it suspicious initially is because it looked to me like a possible rogue attempt to appear engaged while avoiding taking any kind of actual position.
----------------------------------------
~Taelac
ROMS XVII:Vanilla Filler
Dead Thread
[May 25, 2012 7:50:56 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
riku743

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Posts: 1812
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Goats wrote: 
If she's asking for his evidence or any real justification and then he has none, why is that suspicious of her? Because he already said that he has no evidence or real justification? That means she can't prod him about it?

I've explained it multiple times, and you don't seem to get it, so I'll try an analogy. Say you feel like the guy at the desk next to you at work is up to something. You tell your manager/boss/whoever "I don't have any specific evidence, but I think person X is up to something". And then your boss aggressively asks "What specific evidence do you have?". Do you not find that manipulative at all? Your boss obviously knows that your claim didn't have any specific evidence attached. And yet he demands some anyway.

It's not a perfect analogy, but explaining hasn't worked.
----------------------------------------
Nil used to play Mala.
Lurking on the forums.
[May 25, 2012 8:15:10 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Kotetsu534



Joined: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 1406
Status: Offline

Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

riku743 wrote: 
What about a pressure vote will catch a rogue moreso than an innocent? How many times have you seen it catch a rogue vs an innocent? And when has more than one pressure vote been at all useful moreso than just one? You didn't actually explain /why/ a pressure vote is useful. You simply said "No, you just haven't read enough!".


There's multiple strawmen in here. I never claimed a pressure vote "will catch a rogue". I didn't even refer to "pressure votes" in particular, as much as "pressure" in general, and certainly not to the relative effectiveness of multiples pressure votes vs. a solitary one. What I did say was that town has to be able to apply pressure to people (see smileo) who are behaving in ways that are undesirable. If it can't, the rogues can play in those undesirable ways (e.g. coasting, being non-committal, deciding what they'll do in advance) and safely survive.

The other strawman here is my supposed accusation that Mrbriney hadn't read enough. I actually said that what happened in other games' he's read isn't relevant. An anecdote or two doesn't prove a thesis.

You get to join my FoS list.

Prosperity wrote: 
Kotetsu, discussing someone's argument and how you may or may not disagree with it is different than pressuring someone and it's far more helpful. Pressuring basically encourages everyone to conform to one play style which is not good for catching rogues. Discussing in a frank and open-minded way is much better for the town as a whole.


Discussing arguments is good, but to make those discussions happen a little pressure may need to be applied. Rogues have no need for discussion, and if they want it, only want it on their terms. The town needs to get them into discussions which aren't on their terms. Pressure can be a useful tool to achieve that end.

As for pressure leading to conformity of playstyle... I don't think it does that to any great extent. It can mean that some of the less desirable playstyles (for town) become tougher to employ without accruing suspicion, and thus deter people from using them for the purpose of avoiding suspicion. That's not a bad thing for the town.


JMRUDNICK wrote: 
I have to say I also disagree with this mainly because the chances of actually hitting an innocent with a role, which wants to be hidden, is a lot greater than hitting a rogue.


How do you know there's a greater chance of hitting an innocent with a role than a rogue?

But suppose you're right. That would imply that you don't think the town should do anything during the day in the early rounds (because anything the town could do would have more chance of harming town power than a rogue). That's not a pro-town position.

JMRUDNICK wrote: 
Rogues have the ability to have the help of a group to avoid this so-called flailing.


Good; let them work as a group in the thread from day one onward. They'll find it near impossible to cover their tracks later.

Bunnylaroo wrote: 
I find the bolded statement to be ironic in light of your complaint about Smiley. You're voting Smiley because he's "refusing" to hunt rogues, but it doesn't matter whether he's a rogue or not to you...so are you rogue hunting? Or policy voting?


My point is that even in the scenario that smileo is not a rogue, it's still necessary to pressure him into changing his play, or it'll be advantageous for the rogues.

Preview Edit:

Ah, see what pressure can do. Smileo turns up and explains why he thought abstaining a good idea. I understand the reasoning re: gaining days at the end of the game, but I still see anyone arguing the town shouldn't hunt rogues as playing with fire. If the town takes action the rogues have to take action in response, and that's where they might leave a trail. If we do nothing, there's never going to be a trail.

A better question than "how many rogues have been lynched on day one?" is "how many rogues have been lynched in part because of something that happened on day one?"


smileo wrote: 
I love your quote most of all, refusal to hunt rogues? did you assume? you know what that makes Kot :P


I never assumed anything, so hold off on the insults, snarky one.

You said:

smileo wrote: 
Lynching phoenix for a Day 1 question would be classic town behavior. we both think it frivolous to seek a rogue there.
not saying she's innocent, but thats a brick, not a wall.

#vote:abstain


You dismissed any thought of suspecting Phoenix, offered no other suspicions and voted to abstain. But apparently I'm assuming you weren't interested in rogue hunting during day one.

You've since went on to say that you don't think day one's (generally) worth bothering with. You've been very clear about that. You will never be able to convince me that that is a pro-town position. But I like that you came back and made the argument anyway.

#Unvote: smileo

FoS: MrBriney, riku
----------------------------------------
Nomura, SO of Innocent, Member of Crimson Tide, Midnight.
[May 25, 2012 8:16:25 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Kotetsu534



Joined: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 1406
Status: Offline

Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Other notes:

- I don't see much of immediate importance in the MrBriney/taelac argument. The amount of discussion the gut vote and gut votes in general have received sticks in my mind more.

- master's reluctance to move his vote away from MrBriney when he discovered he was thinking of MrBriney voting someone other than he actually did is a bit odd. I don't know if I find it all that suspicious though. If he was a rogue I think he'd have been more likely to immediately backtrack, having made an error. This isn't an FoI, just a note that I don't find master's vote suspicious.
----------------------------------------
Nomura, SO of Innocent, Member of Crimson Tide, Midnight.
[May 25, 2012 8:21:59 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Lotsofgoats

Member's Avatar


Joined: Apr 4, 2005
Posts: 10163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

That analogy sounds like something that would be a human resources issue, and would potentially land the person saying, "I think [so and so] is up to something..." in some trouble. Also, you're missing the third guy who's saying that the second guy is sabotaging the first guy.


So yea, I'm satisfied with where I'm at.
----------------------------------------
I am Lotsofgoats and I approve this message.
[May 25, 2012 8:28:05 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Nalanthi



Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 982
Status: Offline

Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

@luvessey
I think your post caused my brain to explode. Not sure if it was the reasoning or the writing style but I comprehended like nothing from your post except that you were watching randomact. Help?
----------------------------------------
Nalanthi - A Blatant PvPer, War Monger and Officer of the Falcon's Fury.
-Midnight (Retired)
Tamman - Head of a Merchant Empire, and Strategist of Black Plague
-Viridian (Retired)
Nalanthi - Mercenary and scalawag.
-Malachite
[May 25, 2012 8:29:12 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
JMRUDNICK

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 3, 2008
Posts: 173
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Kotetsu534 wrote: 
JMR wrote: 

I have to say I also disagree with this mainly because the chances of actually hitting an innocent with a role, which wants to be hidden, is a lot greater than hitting a rogue.



How do you know there's a greater chance of hitting an innocent with a role than a rogue?

But suppose you're right. That would imply that you don't think the town should do anything during the day in the early rounds (because anything the town could do would have more chance of harming town power than a rogue). That's not a pro-town position.


How many games have you played that you catch a rogue Day 1 compared to if you catch an innocent? That's not true saying that I don't agree the town should do anything during the day of an early round.. I'm saying I don't think it's wise for us to go blind lynching someone. Personally, I rather wait til there's a solid case before casting a vote. Might be just me not wanting to make the same mistake I made last game where I acted not thinking my actions all the way through and my vote was used to lynch an innocent and in the process almost getting myself lynched the next Day.

Yes, sometimes rogues tend to slip up on Day 1 and makes it a lot easier to build a case later down a line. So, I'm in the pro-abstain camp or not voting at all camp on Day 1.

I for one think I have improved a bit from my mistakes in my first game and therefore avoiding making them a second time around.

Kotetsu534 wrote: 
JMR wrote: 

Rogues have the ability to have the help of a group to avoid this so-called flailing.



Good; let them work as a group in the thread from day one onward. They'll find it near impossible to cover their tracks later.


That's what the town hopes would happen, but sometimes that doesn't go exactly as planned.
----------------------------------------
JeanneMarie of Obsidian
Formerly of Meridian
Captain of Lion's Roar
Princess of Placeholder
[May 25, 2012 8:40:49 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
master2482

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 30, 2007
Posts: 987
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Well then.
#Unvote: MrBriney

It's going in the record books, so good enough for now.

Also, fluffily enough, I opened my disk drive on my laptop and two screws fell out D:
I checked every screw hole in the disk drive, and they were there, so I get to tear the laptop apart now. Joy.
----------------------------------------
 
The people about there, had they been awake instead of asleep, at other times would have seen even stranger things. Some day, but not at this time, I shall make an announcement of something that I never once dreamed of.

[May 25, 2012 8:51:40 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
clasalle

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Posts: 616
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Someone said something that sparked something for me. We may not have found a lot of rogues on Day 1, but I am wondering how many rogues have been found and their Day 1 discussions were at least 1 of the bricks in the wall.

Now for all of those who say Day 1 is quiet just shush you. This whole Day has had more discussion than the last week of the last game. Now yes yes I know more people and blah blah but this has not been quiet.

Luvessy to address your comments. You are right that it probably could have been a lot more names. However, honestly I looked over at my notepad of names and those 3 jumped out at me that their was really no mental thought process at all for them.

At this point I don't have a watchlist or an FoS list I'm still watching.
I really would like to hear more from some of our quiet members.


@Nalanthi I have found some of the players it helps if you read it out loud.
----------------------------------------
Lassie on Viridian
[May 25, 2012 8:53:28 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Bunnylaroo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 4, 2008
Posts: 898
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

JMR wrote: 
I may have been seriously confused or mislead on what the correct terminology to what JMT meant.


I feel your pain...out of all the new ROMS terms I've had to learn, for some reason JMT is the one that just won't stick in my mind, although I think I've got it now.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I do find it a little odd that there are now two people (Talisker and now Goats) who, while obviously following/commenting on the Mrbriney situation, seem to have overlooked his justification post. (Talikser may have missed it on preview, but there is around half an hour between the justification and the linked post) Is it because you guys missed it or because you're not satisfied with it?
_______________________________________________________________________________

Kotetsu wrote: 
I wrote: 

I find the bolded statement to be ironic in light of your complaint about Smiley. You're voting Smiley because he's "refusing" to hunt rogues, but it doesn't matter whether he's a rogue or not to you...so are you rogue hunting? Or policy voting?

My point is that even in the scenario that smileo is not a rogue, it's still necessary to pressure him into changing his play, or it'll be advantageous for the rogues.


I understand your point. I just wouldn't exactly call that "rogue hunting" on your part, since your position on first day abstains holds equally whether the player in question is a rogue or what you may consider a "harmful innocent".

Kotetsu wrote: 
Ah, see what pressure can do. Smileo turns up and explains why he thought abstaining a good idea.

That's working on the assumption that Smiley wouldn't have returned had you not pressured him into it, which you really have no way of knowing, but hey.
I see that you've unvoted, so perhaps you're satisfied that Smiley came back, but I'd like to know, since your vote was triggered by his "refusal to hunt rogues", what is it about Smiley's post that makes you think he is now hunting rogues? What I saw in that post is the exact response that I would expect to see after someone is the recipient of a pressure vote: He made defensive replies to all the people that questioned his abstain. That's all. We really don't have a sense of his suspicions, other than "Now I'm watching the people that are watching me". This is why I'm not the biggest fan of pressure votes.
___________________________________________________________

Preview edit:
And Master pops up with...a "pressure" unvote? You said earlier that you were "oddly confident" (more gut ftw!) and happy with the Mrbriney vote, so what's changed?
----------------------------------------
Bunnylaroo of Sage Emerald

Avatar by Pennywhistle
[May 25, 2012 8:56:56 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
riku743

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Posts: 1812
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Goats wrote: 
That analogy sounds like something that would be a human resources issue, and would potentially land the person saying, "I think [so and so] is up to something..." in some trouble. Also, you're missing the third guy who's saying that the second guy is sabotaging the first guy.
Well, bringing unrelated variables into an analogy that I already said wasn't perfect is sure gonna help you get what I'm saying.

--------

Kotetsu wrote: 
There's multiple strawmen in here. I never claimed a pressure vote "will catch a rogue". I didn't even refer to "pressure votes" in particular, as much as "pressure" in general, and certainly not to the relative effectiveness of multiples pressure votes vs. a solitary one.

You said you really disliked someone else saying that a pressure vote isn't particularly likely to catch a rogue. This implies disagreement -- you think it's more likely to catch a rogue. I disagreed.

If you ignore context, you weren't talking about pressure votes, sure. However, here's where you replied to MrBriney's post. His post was entirely talking about pressure votes. There is no way you could be replying to that and not be talking about pressure votes.

You may have never talked specifically about the effectiveness of multiple pressure votes, but you apparently think they're more effective, since you applied a secondary one.

Kotetsu wrote: 
The other strawman here is my supposed accusation that Mrbriney hadn't read enough. I actually said that what happened in other games' he's read isn't relevant. An anecdote or two doesn't prove a thesis.

"You haven't read enough" is what I paraphrased you saying. You say that you said "You need a bigger sample size". In this context, those are the same thing. You may have misunderstood my "You haven't read enough".
----------------------------------------
Nil used to play Mala.
Lurking on the forums.
[May 25, 2012 9:04:37 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
master2482

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 30, 2007
Posts: 987
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Bunny wrote: 
Preview edit:
And Master pops up with...a "pressure" unvote? You said earlier that you were "oddly confident" (more gut ftw!) and happy with the Mrbriney vote, so what's changed?

Quite frankly, the town. Take it how you will, but I began to garner suspicion for the vote, and it appeared to be increasing over time (I still don't see where I made a mistake other than the names). My explanations didn't convince anyone, and I'm sure confused them further, so I decided to unvote.
inb4meta
The above isn't really a JMT, as we all want to stay alive and play whether rogue or innocent.

Preview edit:
We have so many posts. Sooooooo many posts. Are we sure this is still Day 1?
----------------------------------------
 
The people about there, had they been awake instead of asleep, at other times would have seen even stranger things. Some day, but not at this time, I shall make an announcement of something that I never once dreamed of.

[May 25, 2012 9:08:53 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Lotsofgoats

Member's Avatar


Joined: Apr 4, 2005
Posts: 10163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

@bunny: For me it was more of a, "Wait, what? No, that can't be right..." kinda thing. I clicked it and was almost expecting a link to another game that briney had played, or something else to reference his playstyle, and not a 1-liner from firebolt. Being that it was a 1-post-to-vote deal, it caught me off guard. I probably should have called it out when I was confused. Having looking at it again when it was linked by riku, I see the reason, but not much meat, and it doesn't change how I feel about riku's defense of briney.

@riku: I get the analogy that you're trying to make. I just don't buy your explanation of the situation, because you're still largely ignoring the things that make briney's move look off.
----------------------------------------
I am Lotsofgoats and I approve this message.
[May 25, 2012 9:12:48 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Lotsofgoats

Member's Avatar


Joined: Apr 4, 2005
Posts: 10163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I feel it might be helpful to pictorially demonstrate my progression, bunny.

First I was all:


Then when I saw the post linked again I was all:


Then after some beard stroking I was all:


And now, I rest.
----------------------------------------
I am Lotsofgoats and I approve this message.
[May 25, 2012 9:18:32 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
riku743

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Posts: 1812
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Goats wrote: 
I just don't buy your explanation of the situation, because you're still largely ignoring the things that make briney's move look off.

It's not that I'm ignoring briney's offness. I understand why his move looks off (I don't particularly find it suspicious, but that's unrelated). It's just that both Taelac's and Kotetsu's reactions to it seem more off.
----------------------------------------
Nil used to play Mala.
Lurking on the forums.
[May 25, 2012 9:39:40 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Kotetsu534



Joined: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 1406
Status: Offline

Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Bunnylaroo wrote: 
I see that you've unvoted, so perhaps you're satisfied that Smiley came back, but I'd like to know, since your vote was triggered by his "refusal to hunt rogues", what is it about Smiley's post that makes you think he is now hunting rogues? What I saw in that post is the exact response that I would expect to see after someone is the recipient of a pressure vote: He made defensive replies to all the people that questioned his abstain.


He came back and explained his position and why he'd taken it, which is more than he did before. I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect him to come back, address points made against him, and then give detailed suspicions on top of that at the same time. Do I hope we see more thoughts from him before the end of the day? Sure.

riku743 wrote: 
"You haven't read enough" is what I paraphrased you saying. You say that you said "You need a bigger sample size". In this context, those are the same thing. You may have misunderstood my "You haven't read enough".


Plural of anecdote =/= data. They are emphatically not the same thing. My point was: MrBriney needs to explain his reasons for thinking pressure is ineffective, not to appeal to his played experienced.

riku743 wrote: 
You said you really disliked someone else saying that a pressure vote isn't particularly likely to catch a rogue. This implies disagreement -- you think it's more likely to catch a rogue. I disagreed.


It doesn't imply direct disagreement - it states strong dislike. What I was trying to get across (and I feel I did... as long as you focus on what I actually said as opposed to the particulars of what I quoted - the quotation is the stimuli for the comment) was that pressure in general is pro-town, and getting bogged down in anecdote wars is a distraction that is irrelevant to the debate.

I'm not sure if you're wilfully misinterpreting me or just looking for something that isn't there...
----------------------------------------
Nomura, SO of Innocent, Member of Crimson Tide, Midnight.
[May 25, 2012 9:57:46 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
riku743

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Posts: 1812
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

What you said in your original post does not reflect what you now claim your points to have been.
----------------------------------------
Nil used to play Mala.
Lurking on the forums.
[May 25, 2012 10:01:44 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Bunnylaroo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 4, 2008
Posts: 898
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

@Goats:


Thanks for explaining. While I don't find Mrbriney's vote justification particularly compelling, I am willing to take it at face value, considering that his vote is the post directly underneath the firebolt post that gave him the gut-rumblings, so his description of his thought process is at least plausible.

____________________________________________________________
Preview Edit:

Kotetsu wrote: 
I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect him to come back, address points made against him, and then give detailed suspicions on top of that at the same time.


But I thought the purpose of the pressure was to get him to hunt rogues, not merely to reappear (especially since you had no solid reason to assume that he had disappeared for the Day). Justification and defense of ones own actions =/= actively examining and questioning the player set to find rogues.

You admit that it's not reasonable for him to justify himself and produce content in the same post, yet you intentionally place him in a position that puts him on the defensive, thereby making it difficult for him to "hunt rogues". Then you unvote him, although the condition that prompted your vote is essentially still in existence, and congratulate yourself on pressure successfully applied? I dun get it.
----------------------------------------
Bunnylaroo of Sage Emerald

Avatar by Pennywhistle
[May 25, 2012 10:11:15 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Searmin

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 23, 2007
Posts: 1890
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

So I got internet at my new apartment and promptly left town. I do have internet out of town but I also have family here and they do things like distract me from playing ROMS.

Luvessy wrote: 
Another one who has caught my attention is Ms. Clasalle. It was as she was talking, and she went and said:
Clasalle wrote: 
I find it more likely we got some quiet rogues on this fine Day 1 so I am going through this list of players and these are the people that have not left an impression at all to me.

Notjaret
Phaedra6
Yasmi

Well, I muddled over this for a bit and was struck by her sentiment there, the "not left an impression" and well, I just thought, "Golly gee, that's a right short list so early in meeting folks." Well, at that point I myself had only spoken up once and I don't reckon that I said a whole lot. So I was left wondering why I wasn't on that list and what impression Ms. Clasalle would have and also thinking about there's a whole host more people that I'd have to put out there myself were I to list such a thing.

This in particular also struck me for pretty much the same reason; I've had one post that wasn't fluff and it was mostly quoting myself from a previous game. I was a bit surprised to dodge the list as well and am curious what sort of impression I might have left on anyone at this point.

In terms of other thoughts, I don't see the MrBriney thing. Innocents tend to be the first off the platform in these situations and usually get strung up for them.

Kotetsu wrote: 
A better question than "how many rogues have been lynched on day one?" is "how many rogues have been lynched in part because of something that happened on day one?"


An even better question would be, "how many arguments against rogues could have started on Day 1?" Rogues aren't always lynched, but off the top of my head, I went full steam ahead after Rogue Taelac in IX (and was promptly banned; I'd like to think I could have gotten the lynch if I wasn't banned and maybe even if the discussion that led to it had been a few hours earlier and I didn't have someone waiting for me to take them out to dinner at the time, but I was pressed for time when I went after her), was bothered by Rogue Hazarath in Cthulhu, and several people were suspicious of Rogue Lizzie in 9.25 (I think that was Day 1 that got the first thoughts). Rogue Terrify likely got Day 1 attention as well. It is definitely possible to catch rogues on Day 1, but we do have a tendency to go after the same types that tend to more often than not be innocent.
----------------------------------------
Searmin

Conversations from the One Ring sloop:
 
Searmin says, "Okay, we're gonna sail this ship right into Mount Doom"
Dracina says," One does not simply sail into Mordor"

[May 25, 2012 10:37:45 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
randomact

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 18, 2009
Posts: 2163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Late night phone tipsy readings.

Luvs, you find me the most suspicious out of the Phoenyx discussion because I noted that I found something odd? I didn't come to the conclusion that it was roguish behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't raised the point someone else probably would have.

Finding it harder to concentrate here than I thought it would be, so I'll leave my post short. I am glad to see Smileo has posted again to firm up his stance, so he is currently safe from my watchlist at this point in time.
----------------------------------------
Loathe/Forever.

Cremate tells ye, "i think i just broke my hymen"
[May 26, 2012 12:08:44 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Setsusa

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 29, 2007
Posts: 3819
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Summary notes of my mind.

Phoe: Seems touchy. But, I dunno if that's suspicious or expected with the reaction she got.

Briney/Tae saga: Really Tae? I mean, really? You kept asking till he changed his answer to something you were satisfied with. Starting to seem like it's just the way you play, but man this whole situation seems overblown. Like I said, a bunch of you (us?) get upset over "pressure" votes or voting at all when really, a random vote gets things going. Ex: This game. Last game. Probably the game before that.

Lyaka's post saying to immediately use a pro-town item because you might lose it, just wha? I'd rather not be all OH LOOK I HAVE AN ITEM THAT TELLS ME THE STATUSES OF THREE PEOPLE AND THEN DISAPPEARS and use it on night one when I have less of an idea of what's going on than I will night two, three, four. The potential risk to me as a sheep in the herd isn't that large, and I think the better idea of other people gives me a better growth rate for knowledge gained/confirmed than risk of losing my ability to death.

Hate to start mimicking cause it's been brought up twice, but the post Clasalle wrote and Searmin above me has quoted struck me as odd too. There are a bunch of people who've hardly said anything that don't appear on that list. And, your post basically says "I don't feel comfortable voting a new person because they are new, but I find these three pretty new people somewhat suspicious".

Leif, you think about this game too much. In the car, in the shower, what's next? During dinner? DURING BACON TIME? (Bacon was on sale at the grocery store today, woo).

I still think quite a few of the players who've returned from lengthy hiatuses, haitusii? are jumping the gun to point their fingers. Maybe that's just because I think your cases aren't strong and you're poking your fingers in to try and find something which is all well and good but some of it seems like "HA, I'VE FOUND YOU ROGUE, TELL ME YOUR SECRETS" and please, I'd imagine of the various people voted and FoS'd right now, one or two are rogues and the rest are innocents. (Oh, for some reason I had it in my head that Q said somewhere there are factions that are not rogue or innocent, so I didn't find Lyaka stating this too odd).

Anyway, I'm not ready to jump on someone. There are some things that are odd but the concerns I have have already been addressed by other people. I plan to be mysterious with what that means for specific reasons, for example: I'm innocent and don't want the rogues to know what I am thinking as well as I'm a rogue and I don't want to tip my hand to the innocents or I'm a third party bent on watching you two normal factions tear each other apart until the time is right for me to swoop in for my AWC.

In summary:

I don't know how you guys did the bullets unless it's copy/paste
I like cake
I like bacon
Master's weird
Goats / Riku saga is meh
Briney/Tae saga is boring and repetitive
Phoe seems frustrated
Kotetsu doesn't like Smileo which is sad because his name has smile in it. Do you just prefer to frown?
I still like cake
Leaning to agree that Jokerina is a bit noncommittal and it bothers me slightly that she/he felt disinclined to acquiesce the request of revealing her/his common identity.
I still plan to not vote this day, in case any of you cared / wanted to complain about that too. Why? Cause I don't want to, we'll go with that. Quick, someone ask me why.
----------------------------------------
Cremate on Emerald.
Motou on Meridian.
Avatar by Elfeesh.
[May 26, 2012 12:10:33 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
randomact

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 18, 2009
Posts: 2163
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Sets, why?
----------------------------------------
Loathe/Forever.

Cremate tells ye, "i think i just broke my hymen"
[May 26, 2012 12:13:25 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
phaedra6

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 21, 2005
Posts: 161
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

/me reappears. Quick summary. Most of it has been pointed out, so I apologize if I'm just repeating stuff that's been said. I'm quite late to the party.

As many others have pointed out, the Phoenyx mod query thing regarding night actions is totally weird. What bothers me is that an RI would most likely not come up with this question, I mean, eh, if you don't run into this very difficulty, it is unlikely it bothers you at all. Hmmm.
I don't think it means that she's a rogue, but I do think it means Phoe has night actions.

What I really don't like is Talisker's reaction to this, immediately jumping to the conclusion that she's a rogue. Watchlist.

Mrbriney gut. I absulutely hate the kind of votes that are based off on gut feelings and dreams and fantasies and so on. I also think gut feelings are rarely unexplainable. It's more like an "XYZ did/said something strange I can't really put my fingers on" kinda thing. Now that's not the case here, since the person you have a gut feeling about hasn't really done anything.
On the other hand, the fact that I don't like it does not equal you're a rogue. What I'm more bothered with is that the vote did get things moving, but did it get things moving in the right direction?

Smiley abstain. What? Why? Just weird.

Tae pressuring things. I get it why she would do that, but it probably went a bit too far.

Goats. While you do explain why you find Riku suspicious, it does not make any sense to me. You're kinda twisting his words. While this might again be normal Goats behavior (which I'm apparently likely to misinterpret), it's worth a watchlisting.

Now regarding voting, I don't see a point in it unless I have a really strong suspicion of someone, which I don't at this point.
----------------------------------------
Disappear

Formerly and occasionally lurking around as Phaedra
SO of False Pretense
 
Bunnyspawn says, "Well, Dis, you have finally convinced me of your loss of innocence."
Bunnyspawn says, "I am frightened."

[May 26, 2012 12:57:35 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
mads0001

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 6594
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

claselle wrote: 
Not to be nitpicky but I don't think bunny mentioned you being scared off. I only noticed this because well I mentioned it. I'm glad that you weren't scared off.

(So do I get bonus points now for being basically forgotten about a la Seastarx).


If you're trying to fly under the radar, sure, you get 5 rogue points. You now lose 5 rogue points however for drawing attention to yourself so obviously.

Darn... I've created a rogue points loop that might well evolve into a paradox. Get me a quantum ROMS player! :P

As it stands, right now I'm seeing a lot of twitchy behaviour. It's probably smarter for a rogue to keep out of the general melee right now. I'm thinking there's a few people that haven't made a massive impression on me thus far.

The whole tae/briney thing isn't really pushing my buttons.

Goats/Riku I'm curious about... Think that could get interesting.

dwizzles, apart from the one comment that stuck out a bit about the ban/lynch booching, hasn't come out with anything else of note... I find that curious.

The whole thing with Smiley seems a bit meh. I'm pretty sure day 1 last game went down a similar path without quite so much resistance. Granted it was a smaller town and WAY less first day content, but y'know, nothing about smiley abstaining now seems odd to me.

Firebolt's pretty quiet too, thinking about it. Perhaps it's the whole "posted twice and got jumped on" thing?

I'm thinking though, part of the issue with "role/iten-heavy" is that people keeping their heads down isn't going to be a great tell. Lots of innocents may well be trying to hang on until they uncover something shiny with their toys/abilities.

That's about the only reason I have for not voting really, I don't want to nail someone useful and don't see enough to be "without a doubt" rogue.
----------------------------------------
rachaelj wrote: 

"your standing in patronising has gone up and is now respected in your archipelago"
spelling corrected by Mads(tm) :P
Avatar by Funny.
[May 26, 2012 2:00:17 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Furare

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 5, 2005
Posts: 1339
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

If I think y'all talk too much, then y'all talk too much.

On my vote - I decided before the game even started that I was going to vote the first person who voted Abstain. It's got nothing to do with whether or not that person is always like that, or whether they might change their vote later, or... well, none of that matters to me. At all. I think Searmin made the point once that psychologically there's something harder about changing an existing vote than making one in the first place. Not voting until you know who to vote for is good. Sticking an Abstain out there until you figure out what you want to do is less so. I don't like Abstain votes in general. I especially don't like Abstain votes when they're a standard first Day policy. The only way I have to show my displeasure in an obvious and notable way is to vote on it.

I'm not sure if anyone was characterising my vote as a pressure vote, but it wasn't specifically. More a "This again? I'm tired of this crap" vote, to be frank.

I said in my last post, and I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the whole "Don't lynch or we might lynch a roleholder by accident!" thing really hacks me off. Here's why: in role games, roleholders get lynched. It happens. Town frequently still wins in spite of this. Here's the rub: Town can win this game without roleholders. It cannot win this game without lynching. Allowing the game to stagnate by not doing what we all came here for (lynch suspected rogues) is not the way I want to play.

I don't especially care that we lynch innocents (this is a constant across games whether I am a rogue or an innocent) because I feel like not lynching does more harm to the game momentum than lynching an innocent does. You gotta try or you don't get nowhere, y'see? The fact that we lynch the wrong sort of people isn't a function of "Day 1 crapshoot" or "Day 2 bandwagon analysis"; it's because we look for the wrong things, we jump at the wrong things, and we give the wrong people a pass because of who they are and how they naturally post. If you value logic and coherence so much that you kill people just for being illogical or incoherent, you're not going to have a great rogue catching record.

Smiley - I said "generally", which I think changes the tone of the assertion somewhat. You do favour Abstains. I don't. I think the "Abstain as default position on Day 1" attitude needs to be stamped out. If you don't think that's your attitude then I've misunderstood you, not misconstrued you. To be honest, I'm not interested in justifying my vote. I don't think you're a rogue necessarily, I don't think you're innocent necessarily, I don't know and it doesn't matter. I voted the first person to vote Abstain because I'd decided pre-game that I was going to do that. That's all the justification my vote has or needs.

Specific thoughts:
I had been going to mention Lyaka's assertion that the OP suggested non-rogue non-town factions, but I see Marinated beat me to the punch. I couldn't find any mention of neutral roles in the rules. I suppose "conversion" might suggest "cult" to some people, but I would really expect some sort of line about neutral win conditions in that case.

Talisker and Taelac are both behaving in the ways I associate with them as innocents. (Amusingly, both of them are far more suspicious to everyone as innocents than as rogues.) Both people I'd be wary of prematurely declaring innocent, though. Just an observation, for now.

I'm not sure I like MrBriney's use of the term "loaded language" when talking about how Tae is talking to him, especially since one could argue (and Tae has) that his own language is pretty emotionally loaded. I don't find him irritating, though, particularly. (Though "ooh, maybe I shouldn't give my opinion anymore" - paraphrase - is a little unpleasant, to my mind.)

I was a little uneasy about Kotetsu's vote on Smiley, because really, I gave hardly any reason for what I did. (To be honest, I'm surprised it didn't draw more comment in general.) To be followed in a vote I barely explained makes me a little twitchy. He's retracted it, though, so I don't know what to make of that. I can't imagine Rogue Kotetsu would imagine he could get a bandwagon off the vote in the first place... so it isn't "I tried to get people to go for this and they're not so I'm backing off". Just an uneasy feeling and nothing more.

I'm not sure why people were bothered by Master saying things that don't make much sense. (<3)

RE: Phoenyx's question - It always annoys me as a mod when rogues ask questions in thread to which they know the answer already, so I kinda hope she's not a rogue. I don't think it's frivolous to suggest she might be. I agree that it's an implication of innocence to ask like that, but I think Talisker came on a bit strong about it initially. (By which I mean the "There's really no good reason for asking in thread, if you're innocent".) Not that I think that's a suspicious circumstance coming from him, but I just noted it, so.

riku743 wrote: 
I quite disagree with your assessment that gut suspicions must have a concrete trigger behind them. If it did, it would hardly be a gut suspicion.


Drop the word "concrete" and it's pretty much true, though. I always feel like people owe it to the town to at least try to figure out what's triggering them. I don't have to trust your (general) gut but if you've got something I can look at then I can decide if you're barking at shadows or not.

PS:
DementedDuck wrote: 
The word "camp" goes in there somewhere.


Doesn't it always, with you? :P
----------------------------------------
Amonet on Obsidian. Dracina everywhere else.

Now only mostly retired.

Avatar by PokeMe.
[May 26, 2012 3:19:57 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Talisker

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 11261
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Phaedra wrote: 
What I really don't like is Talisker's reaction to this, immediately jumping to the conclusion that she's a rogue. Watchlist.


That's pretty much exactly what didn't happen. I watchlisted her yesterday and after her casual, "What JMT? Me? Well I never!" sentence snuck into the middle of a giant post I moved her to low FoS. I haven't concluded she's a rogue, just that it's more likely that she is than, well, at this point anyone else. I think she's this face, if it helps:


I don't really recall which order they all go in though.


As for Sets, I've had some job shifts recently that make a long post during work hours tough, so a lot of that thinking gets delayed until the hour drive home. And while mowing the lawn, and the subsequent shower.

Nothing interferes with bacon time though.
----------------------------------------
Leif
The Forums
Gunnermooch wrote: 
I can't respond because I do not understand what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

Av by Ecastasy
[May 26, 2012 5:51:31 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
The_Jokerina

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 20, 2012
Posts: 16
Status: Offline
Re: ROMS: (DC)XV -- GAME ON Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Talisker wrote: 
It's never too early to start looking looking for rogues, and Day 1 is only as fruitless as you want it to be. Rogues have been caught in the past as a result of Day 1 discussion.
If you re-read what I said, I said pointing people as rogues. Agreed, it's never too early to start looking for rogues, but it's another thing claiming someone as a rogue.

riku wrote: 
I can say from my own experience that gut feelings are not always (and not often) triggered by something specific.
So, you just think someone is a rogue for no reason? That is just comes out of thin air?

 
He didn't have that justification when he voted, so why is his vote okay now that he applied reasoning ad-hoc?
Well, it shouldn't have taken so long for justification in the first place. What I found suspicious of MrBriney was that firebolt had only posted 4 posts at the time and somehow, his gut was telling him that she was a rogue. It shouldn't have been hard to point out why it was telling him that she was a rogue.

The analogy that you used, I don't think it's manipulative at all. If you go to your boss and say you think someone is up to something, they're going to ask what that person did to make you think something. Have they been hanging around the water cooler too long? Have they been working just a bit too hard? Do you really expect your boss to just accept what you say?

AhoyLindsay wrote: 
declined to say whether she intends to abstain, vote, or not vote.
I believe I said I will vote for someone if I feel suspicious enough of someone to.

Setsusa wrote: 
Leaning to agree that Jokerina is a bit noncommittal and it bothers me slightly that she/he felt disinclined to acquiesce the request of revealing her/his common identity.
If my identity was of any importance, I would just play on my main account.

Some thoughts:

I don't like smileo's "Day 1 sucks!" stance and then offering no alternative. I also don't like those who have said, "since when have we ever caught a rogue using Day 1 stuff?" First of all, saying discussion on Day 1 sucks and then offering no alternative discussion topics just contributes to why it apparently sucks so much content wise. I personally feel that the ball has started rolling quicker in this game and just because it is Day 1, shouldn't be dismissed. My second point is that it really shouldn't matter if in past games a rogue has been caught on Day 1 or because of posts they made on Day 1. That could change at some point. I'm going to be watchlisting Smileo.

My other thought, riku's gut votes thing. Gut votes do have a trigger, even if it may be hard for you to find said trigger. However, what I don't like about his posts is that he said he didn't say that a gut vote was enough of a reason (Goats had claimed that he said that), so I'm assuming that he thinks they're not. Yet, he's going after Taelac for trying to get more than just a gut vote from MrBriney. It seems contradictory to me. Another on my watchlist.
[May 26, 2012 7:11:35 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Posts: 2964   Pages: 99   [ First Page | Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2016 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates