Actually, Taure, there are some very good arguments for a pro-town lynching that I'm just echoing here. I believe you and Merill had a back-and-forth about this, but I can't source that, so I may well be wrong. And yes, it's almost a direct echo of something you posted in SWII - which is kinda creepy actually. But I still can't see anything wrong with the actual content. I'd love, honestly, for you to point out where I'm wrong - no, really, I'd like to learn.

Why exactly is it that, in contrast to all of the other games where lynching first was said to be necessary, it's anathema here?

---------- Post automerged at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

Ofc, you aren't actually saying it's anathema, seeing as you are voting to lynch me. >_<

Still, though, what part of that was faulty from a townie perspective?

 

On phone so I'll keep it brief.

It's not the content of your post I question, it's your motivation for posting it. Like I say, and as you admit, it mirrors past scum attempts to force a Lynch. The content of the post being well argued only makes it more suspicious.

 

/shrug

Fair enough. Do you agree with the general idea, though, and if not, then why?

 

No.

It doesn't say "You may kill a player". It says "You may determine the Lynch target."

Therefore, if the Boy King decides the Lynch and it hits a Townie, it still counts as a missed Lynch, and thus a mislynch.

As an addendum to clarify on Kai's earlier questioning of the Boy King (judge)'s lynch timing:

I'll amend the Rules to reflect this.

 

That kind of sucks. Just do the following

1. Day instantly ends if 50% of players have put in a no lynch vote (Since if 50% of players are going for no lynch, a majority can't possibly be reached)
2. Judge can otherwise make a lynch at the end of the day if there is no majority.

Since like, day randomly ending 12 earlier than expected kind of sucks a big one.

 

I can get down with our Boy King laying down the law. I know that I sure as hell do not want the blood of an innocent person on my hands.

Also, <3 you all for the lack of TL;DR. It makes this game so much more fun.

 

Sometimes, 48 hours can be too long.

Besides, the end result is no different than having people decide to bandwagon someone in a similar timeframe.

I'll be sticking to my idea for HoT.

 

Like I said in Warlock, if discussion was over a consensus would have been reached, but obviously you're free to do whatever.

Also, consider what happens if the judge is dead and 36 hours is reached (without a required amount of votes to keep the day going) does day just instantly end with no lynch?

 

Am I the only one who thinks that voting as a town for a lurker would be similar to abstaining and asking the Boy King to lynch a lurker? At least with the former, we can (kinda) ascertain who is trying to push the lynch bandwagon. The only roles we can't lynch as a town are the Young Queen (don't kill this one!) and Tits Targaryen. Not all lurkers are bad; they could be simply busy or not quite interested by their role. Besides, we've had magnificently talkative scum.

I just wouldn't want the mocking if I were the Boy King and had caused the demise of the Imp. Irene cracked under pressure in Lesstiny because of the enormous expectations thrust upon her. Hate to be under that sort of pressure. ;.;

Btw, looking forward the roles, the Queen seems almost useless. You can only use innocent roles for matches? And only on every second day? How stupid is that? You'd need Irene-level logic to even get one correct result, before the Kingslayer dies. lol.

For the Spider, I'm assuming that "Check" = Hand's ability?

 

Personally, I'm all for a random lynch on day 1 - especially in HoT, where there's a statistically significant chance of hitting scum.

I'd also like to say that I personally think that the idea of providing historical lurkers/people whose survival is -EV even if they're innocent for the Judge-equivalent to kill is a pretty fucking terrible idea, right up there with Custer's strategy of 'kill off everyone better/more experienced than myself.' Yes, of course I'd like to kill Azira for lurking non-stop and - in this game - advocating a strategy of 'fuck strategy, playing badly is fun!' No shit I'd enjoy lynching jwlk for his post of "WHY WOULD CUSTER MENTION MY NAME FOR NO REASON? LET'S LYNCH KAI!"

Doesn't mean that it's a good strategy, though. Too meta.

 

I disagree with letting the Boy King make the lynch. One of the most important things pro-town players have is the voting records from previous days, and missing out on that for even the first day is a very bad thing for the town. So without further adieu:

Vote Player: Custer for the reason I laid out before I went to sleep (sorry dude, you just read as slightly more scummy than everyone else to me).

 

Aekiel: but a Boy King lynch also has the added benefit of having no chance of killing at least one Pro-Town role - that of the Boy King.

 

True that, but the question is whether the loss of the voting record for day one counteracts the surety of having one safe pro-town role? In the short term I'd agree with you, but over the course of the game this day's voting records could prove vital, so I'm going to have to go with proper lynch over the Boy King.

 

I have to go now, so putting this out there. I'll probably be back later, despite my uncertain internet, but I'll leave it here in case I don't.

Vote Player: Taure

You say that me saying we should lynch day 1 is scummy, while not actually saying why it's a bad idea. If it isn't a bad idea, then while scum have motivation to post it, so do townies. If it is a bad idea then please elaborate.

I'll be happy to change this once you have access to a computer and can provide me with an adequate reason for suspecting me, but until then it just looks like you're trying hard to get me lynched for no real reason.

 

Aekiel, that would be so on any other day but I think on the first day where most townies are clueless, them voting to lynch another townie could later be looked upon as guilty. So the voting record from the first day is not entirely reliable and in some cases, misleading.

 

Aekiel: I kind of disagree that the voting record is valuable. It's never really seemed that way to me. With the exclusion of when scum are playing reallllly badly (*cough*Lesstiny*cough) I've yet to see analysis of the voting record be used to (successfully) identify scum.

I have seen it used to accuse me based on inconsistencies in my voting record, though. When I was a vanilla townie & Acolyte.

If anything, I think that the use of vote-analysis is inconsistently valuable at best and counterproductive at worst.

 

Hmm, that could be true, but what we're looking for in these records is proof of guilt, not proof of innocence. Scum will always have an ulterior motive in their votes, and that can shine through after a day or two. Basically, we look for trends. If we can match a trend to a specific player then there's a good chance that player will be scum (especially in this game), because pro-town roles have one pair of roles with a shared qt, so the chances of pro-town players seeming to be acting in concert by design is slim to nil.

In short, the first day gives us a clue as to who could be what, but it only makes sense to us when viewed against the backdrop of later lynches. If we King Lynch today we lose what could be a valuable resource in the late game.

---------- Post automerged at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

Fiat: If you rely solely on voting records, then yes, they can be misleading (just look at the game where I was healer, where I was convinced you were scum). They're still very useful though as secondary evidence. People who vote this way compared to people who vote that way. It gives you an insight into their personality and perhaps their plans, and in the later stages it means we have evidence of what they do when free to choose their targets, because as the days go on the scum have less and less choice in who to vote for if they want to remain out of the spotlight.

 

Question for the moderator:

I'd like a complete list of things that can kill the MoD while the Bloodrider is alive. Your talk of rolekills and etc is kind of obfuscating.

 

Hence why mine revealed me as belonging to the dastardly an extremely pro-scum role of...Wizard? Or how it clearly demonstrated my guilt when I was a wizard?

Voting records have, in my experience, been totally fucking useless except in serving as 'proof of guilt' that easily works for fucking everyone, innocent or scum.

 

Voting records helped me tremendously in tinyhunt, allowing me to narrow my vigilante-kill targets to Rehio and Kensington. If anything, voting records helped me more than in-thread behaviour; Little Knee fooled me with her ruse, when I should have simply stuck to her dubious voting patterns.

SW1 also had voting records which helped Klackerz the Probe. However, SW1 was an exception, because the scum could afford to behave in a guilty, solidarity bloc as they did due to the town's general behaviour.

If we have to point fingers at current, HoT lurkers (whether we get the Boy King to bear the repercussions or vote as a town), I will state that Palindrome the DE2 Lurker and Nemrut the SW1 Lurker warrant some scrutiny. I don't really have a half-way decent read on Silens because he's rather new and I don't know him as well as the other two.