I'm confused, the question was asking about advantages to town that came from a new set up. I answered that I felt Kalas would have worked to keep that from being a thing to minimize OP-ness and potentials for "hard mode". I ask you this, how can you form a theoretical scum team based on information that's not been presented. Sure you can make assumptions based on how people act and react to simple talk but without actual factual data points, there's no solid evidence for any one argument. Here's my issue with the pushing and prodding to "find evidence" on the first day. No matter what I present, there's always going to be some amount of "reasonable doubt". Always, period, end of story. We can argue all day over word choice and what not, but at the end of the day, I like to have an actual data set to reference to. That'd be the lynchings and their line ups. I get 'why' everyone pushes for analysis, but the fact of the matter is, I don't have anything I'm comfortable throwing out to the wind. It's not that I want to say as little as possible. It's that I'd much rather respond to pointed questions and gauge reactions to it. What we've been doing so far, is very much along the lines of what I'd want which is question and answer. Not speculation, not yet at least. Addendum: I feel some people might point out that what I'm pusing for is a communications pause, which I'm not. What I'm pushing for is continuous question and answer. Don't follow up, don't make others defend their responses. Instead, keep asking them questions, over and over. Slip in similar ones, see if a different response is given. Then push at it. Don't just take the first response and run with it. This is basically an interview phase, ask questions, get answers, move on. This is D1 stuff and we're treating the current day as if it's a D2 or 3.
Perhaps you should try questioning then, rather than continually answering. Scumhunt, rather than relying on other people to do it for you. Also, I disagree about not following up on answers. Forcing people to defend their points highlights their thought processes much better than 20 questions ever could and gives away tells that are much more enlightening than the simple answers people usually give out at this stage. You can fake answers on D1 with little to no trouble, but it's much harder to fake a town mindset from the same point.
Roles, doesn't the reasonable doubt thing apply all the time? Sure it's a bit more D1,but I believe it's use is to give us information on how people settle put reads etc. 1) scum don't like giving reads d1 because they lose consistency if they retract reads to fit the situation later, verses getting free reign to do whatever 2) seeing how wagons etc form D1 allow us to use the wagons from D1.if we do it completely your way, we throw that entire utility out for today. And we have an odd number alive, so we waste a mislynch if we don't Lynch today ---------- Post automerged at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ---------- Also what aekiel said, but only cus he ninja'd me
I have always felt that D1 is not as useful as it should be. If I were to design a mafia variant, either it would start at N1, or all the non-killing roles would be able to activate once in pregame.
It's really not hard to fake a town mindset, unfortunately. Which is why a constant barrage of questions, with some variations, proves effective. There's a reason interviews use the same questions over and over. They work. I'm willing to bet that during a game, if I were to simply barrage one person with numerous questions and statements, (of which, most are just rearranging the phrasing or new phrasing for the same question) they'd show enough variation to allow for some kind of analysis. Alternatively, the way we've been going back and forth, you asking questions and me responding with simple answers that allows you to ask follow up questions. It allows me to know what you're thinking somewhat and allows you a glimpse into my thoughts. Much more effectively and with less clutter than accusations and arguments over the meaning of a single word or phrase. This gives scum less to push and prod and hide behind.
But Riley, what about someone not getting asked questions? You're providing a situation where someone can get a free-pass. And that's the point of doing things D1, it makes it harder over the course of the game to fake a town mindset. @Quanksor The issue with starting N1 is someone gets night killed N1, meaning someone basically doesn't even get to play as they can't even influence whether they're killed or not
@Citrus: I'm providing a method to use that anyone can use. Not a situation. If I were telling you to specifically question one person, then yes that's a theoretical situation. What I'm offering is a method anyone can use, new or old, to try and gather info on D1. If it makes you happy how about this. @His Fluffiness: What's your thoughts on Schro now that he's put in a request for replacement? Especially pertaining to this: [quote:]However, Schrodinger was fluffposting and then giving excuses for not giving his opinions, which I find to be scummy[/quote] ---------- Post automerged at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ---------- dammit. The quote tag screwed up.
I have to admit that my suspicions of the Schrodinger slot are actually a bit less. Part of why I was scumreading him was that he kept on saying that he was out of his depth, but if he's actually replacing out due to that, it seems less scummy. Since I'm now reading that slot as less scummy than before, I'll vote one of my other scum reads. Vote: Sloth
Riley (1): TerRaine Snowvon (): Aekiel (): Citrus (1): Kento Kraitos Lyrium (): Sloth (2): Citrus, His fluffiness TerRaine (2): Lyrium, Aekiel Qgqqqqq (): Rubicon (): Nemrut (): Atum (): His fluffiness (2): Sloth, Rubicon Quanksor (1): Zenzao Schrodinger (): Zenzao (1): Quanksor Fishy Justice (1): Qgqqqqq Kento Kraitos (1): Not Voting ( 8 ) Sloth, Nemrut, Atum, Schrodinger, Fishy Justice, Snowvon, Riley 17 Alive, 9 to lynch Mod notes:
ika, could you include the deadline timer in your votals? Or at least the date and time. ---------- Post automerged at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ---------- mod the above request is directed at you don't mind me just adding color for visibility
I was annoyed that they kept on talking about things that I had no clue about the meaning of, and I didn't like TerRaine giving a town read on Lyrium before going on about how Lyrium was putting words in people's mouths. From that tiff, I thought TerRaine came out as scummy, and I'm still leaning town on Lyrium.
Okay Riley can be town I guess. I see there were some more questions about this, so just to reiterate, I am town. ---------- Post automerged at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ---------- @Kento Kraitos: I liked your wall post but you haven't been talking much about who you think might be scum. Is any player sticking out as suspicious to you so far? ---------- Post automerged at 11:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ---------- Someone called Riley defensive, which I don't think is actually true -- he's usually defensive as town. There's some of that here, but I think his tone is more controlled and he's not rising to bait that he might have in other games. Playing differently sometimes implies playing a different alignment. That said, I was kind of impressed by his responsiveness and consistency in the back-and-forth above, so... I'm going to call him town for now. ---------- Post automerged at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ---------- Unvote: his fluffiness Vote: TerRaine
I think that Citrus, Rubicon and Atum might be scum, but I like Aekiel, Lyrium and Snowvon. Then again, I'm not reading any of them heavily scum so far.
^ Why Snowvon? @Citrus: Do you have scum reads yet? Who and why? Your ISO is pretty barren as far as that goes. You're expanding a town bloc, which is not the same thing.
I just like his posts, and his attitude. Actually, the six of them from Towniest to Least Town Aekiel Lyrium Snowvon Rubicon Citrus=Atum
