|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 3, 2013 19:53:07 GMT -8
Sorry Sets, I know I haven't said much, I apologize. I am wrapped up in the play, but I only have to do lights one more time (Friday night's dress rehearsal), and then I'm just show shop, which is, stand around the hour before the play, then again at intermission and 15 minutes afterwards and sell the souvenirs. No stress, whereas running the lights is scaring the bejeesus outta me. I did it tonight, and only missed one cue, but that was because we were being asked about a mic issue, and couldn't hear the actors.
Riku, I appreciate the explanation, and I see you've already mentioned what would cause me concern. If you want to vote seriously, then you should do it. Otherwise, the rogue can plan to their best advantage.
Crazy, I don't suppose you'd care to be a little more specific than I feel a little off. I haven't really been here, so in my handful of posts, I'd think you'd be able to point to something a little more definite than something.
Right now, it's been basic strategy discussion. Should we lynch now, should we lynch later, should we not lynch until the very end...
Seems to me that the person who would be most afraid of a lynch in a small game would be the rogue. A 1 in 6 shot isn't that terrible of odds even shooting fish in a barrel while blindfolded. I think the longer we wait to try, the easier for the rogue to pick off their biggest threats.
That makes Sets my most suspect at the moment, since he's advocating missing at least 2 Days, if I read that right.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 3, 2013 21:38:55 GMT -8
This raised my suspicions. I'm not really sure how to explain why, but i'll try. It seems a little too... logical. Which, I know, is generally a good thing. But it feels like cookie cutter reasoning. Sets is advocating this, which is a Rogue ThingTM, and so Sets is a rogue. While it's true that it does make sense that a rogue would be afraid of lynches and that Sets did advocate missing more lynches, I can't see rogue Sets, or any rogue for that matter, advocating that any more than they would as an innocent. Thus, Joly's suspicion reads to me as someone searching for a reason to suspect someone. However, in a game with not much content so far and mostly meta, this lends itself more to innocents than usual. So I'm not *that* suspicious of Joly. But, at this point, it's all my gut has noticed.
I'm sure I explained that terribly.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Mg on Jul 3, 2013 21:52:35 GMT -8
Gut, Joly, perhaps fuelled by wanting to get more serious, yet taking your own time in doing so.
My head was already spinning, Riku's post made it even faster. Woo! Made sense on the forth attempt! Back to sleep to battle the headache again.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 3, 2013 22:06:59 GMT -8
I guess I can see why you think that way, like I picked something roguish then fit a person to it, because of the way I wrote the post. But really, I read the thread, I considered the arguments each made, and then I considered why each person would suggest what they suggested. Sets isn't exactly the cautious type, IMHO, so seeing him advocate caution was weird. When I considered that for the most part, only a rogue fears a lynch, I can indeed see Rogue Sets advocating that we don't lynch while he sits back and picks us off.
In a game that has been mostly meta and the rest pretty much being silly, it's the meta we have to use to try to figure out the rogue. I weighed why an innocent would want the proposed scenarios against why a rogue would want them. While missing Day 1 could indeed be Innocent leaning, I felt that purposefully skipping more would only benefit one person.
It was basically me saying 'oh hey, this thing is suspicious, therefore, I suspect the person who did it.' And I guess that all of us should be looking for suspiciousness, since, well, that's how we find the rogue. Right? I mean, the same could be said for your most recent post about me that you said about mine. That you're looking for a reason to suspect me, and so, you say I'm too logical in my reasoning about Sets. Aren't we all, in some way, looking for reasons to suspect someone? The innocents are looking for reasons that make one a rogue, the rogue is looking for a reason to call out an innocent without bringing too much attention down on their head.
I'm not sure I made any sense either. I shouldn't post at 2 AM. But the hubby fell asleep across the bottom of the bed, and is steadfastly refusing to wake up enough to comprehend the fact that I want to sleep too and he needs to MOVE so I can lay down. Plus, he doesn't have his mask on, and the 'oh hey I'm not breathing so I should make godawful noises' is making me want to stab him.
|
|
|
Post by yasmi on Jul 4, 2013 1:04:22 GMT -8
Hello, I don't like day ones, maybe that's what makes sets say yasmi is being yasmi. Day one reminds me of a first date, where you have expectations and don't wanna say the wrong thing just not to cause the wrong impression. Everything is nicely bubblewrapped and fake. Unfortunatly if you need to pass this "sniff-booty" day to continue knowing the other person.
Now I am trying to figure how not voting several days in a row may be more beneficial to town rather than rogues. Yes we do get more discussion material, but we also do not get a shot at trying to find a rogue and, in my opinion, the rogue will just mingle in easier.
Day one letting go is fine but not more than that. It will not help town at all. Right now I am more inclined one of the male persons is the rogue, didnt get that impression from either Joly or Crazymg, but hell its early morning and my brain is still slow....
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jul 4, 2013 4:31:29 GMT -8
Yeah, sorry, so I got distracted by my actual job (which is a first) so I forgot I was supposed to kick this off an hour ago.
Day 2 begins. Yasmi is banned.
There are 5 players remaining; you require 3 votes for one player to get a lynch. Your next lynch deadline is 5:30am PDT on July 6th.
(I'll cut the extra hour off Night 2 rather than Day 2; you guys shouldn't get less discussion time because I'm a derp.)
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 4, 2013 11:00:55 GMT -8
That's what I'm talking about, though. Maybe I just have a different perspective because I was a rogue in one of these tiny games, but I know that when I was, I did everything I could to seem exactly like an innocent. With so few players and so few posts, there's no way to fly under the radar or let your mistakes get lost in the bundle of posts. Everyone will be looking very closely at everything you say. There's no way I would have advocated anything that I wouldn't advocate as an innocent. Now, this doesn't mean FoI Sets, because regardless of if he's innocent or a rogue, he most likely thinks that what he is advocating is a pro-town scenario. But it does mean FoS Joly, because to me, it doesn't look like a suspicion that is founded on an innocent mindset.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 4, 2013 12:19:41 GMT -8
On an innocent mindset from me, or that I ddin't look at why an innocently mindsetted Sets would do it.
Because I don't believe that Sets really considers if things make him look more innocent or more roguish, I think he says what he thinks, and I don't see what he's thinking being beneficial to the town. And people listen to him, he's quite influential. He's not going to go out of his way to pretend to be the perfect little innocent, because that would be a dead giveaway.
Are you suspicious of me for suspecting him or not? Last night you were fairly wishy washy on it, saying, well, it's suspicious, but not THAT suspicious, and now, it's FOS. It seems that as soon as someone posted something not meta, you jumped on it as suspicious, and dismissed the possibility that I might have hit on something.
You're doing the very thing you seem to be accusing me of doing, so if it's roguish for me to suggest suspicion on what looks like an ulterior motive (that waiting with no lynch is pro-rogue), why is it ok for you to suggest suspicion on me saying that hey, that behavior is pro rogue, not pro town, therefore, I suspect you.
That doesn't make sense I don't think. Why does pointing out pro rogue behavior make me suspicious? Are you suggesting that we only look at people suggesting pro town behavior?
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jul 4, 2013 14:50:00 GMT -8
I guess for me the biggest thing indicating it's not specifically a rogue thing from Sets is that I think he proposed the same thing the last interim game as an innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 4, 2013 17:39:26 GMT -8
I didn't read the last interim game, I was too busy to keep up with it, plus, I had no internet for a time in there.
But Sets doing something as an innocent doesn't mean he wouldn't do it as a rogue. And I don't think that missing all the lynches is pro town. It's just sitting around BSing while the rogue picks us off, then guessing.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 4, 2013 17:57:27 GMT -8
I don't understand how it's sitting around BSing. You keep more innocents alive and you have more discussion time to come to a consensus on who the rogue is. It's not the only way to play the game and it's not necessarily the right way to play the game. I personally think it's pro town and pro fun. Getting lynched for "information" when that "information" is very minimal isn't very fun.
But, say we lynched any of the alive people toDay and they come up innocent (thus the game isn't over and we don't win) what does it tell you, what information do you gain from the 4 non lynchees voting the lynchee, or from a 3-1 split? Depending on who the 1 would be in a 3-1 would you be able to pinpoint their alignment based on if a certain person came up as an innocent?
At this point I'm trying to analyze the Riku-Joly discussion. I agree more with Riku but I don't think that necessarily makes Jolyma a rogue - but does what she is saying make her seem like a rogue? If this were a larger game I would likely vote Jolyma for the moment because it's still early in the Day and if she is innocent and does get lynched it doesn't put us into a critical situation. Given the circumstances, such a lackadaisical approach to voting isn't sufficient.
Next on the docket is for me to think about who would ban Yasmi and why. Given her content level it's probably more or less someone who didn't feel they could ban one of the more talkative people, so in that case I think it's important to analyze why they would be afraid to ban someone who was more outgoing on Day one.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 4, 2013 18:24:24 GMT -8
Sets, it depends upon who was lynched, the reasons given, and who benefitted the most from that person being gone. A lynched innocent gives information. Sitting here twiddling our thumbs while we wait to be banned doesn't sound like fun, and with no information incoming, what is it that we talk about? More meta? Where does that get us? Historically, when it's decided we aren't lynching, we just don't talk, or it's one or two people, and then they just get themselves lynched, because it's easier to find reason to suspect with a bunch of posts than someone with a couple, and nothing in them.
Well, you say, and I can hear you say it, you can talk about the bans. Problem there is, only one person knows the reason for the ban. Given Yasmi's level of content, I would suppose that it's not that someone was afraid to ban someone more vocal, but that there isn't any information to gain off of someone with no suspicions out in the thread. There is nothing from Yasmi to point anywhere, she's the safest person to ban. It wasn't really all that shocking. So, we spend the day chasing our tails and second guessing who 'knows' why someone was banned, and rehashing the nothing that was given by the person banned, and where does that leave us when the next ban happens? Still at square 1 spinning our wheels.
These little games give me a sense of urgency, of a need to have information to make a decision on. Sets, it seems like you almost want to put the brakes on, and leave us with as little information incoming as possible. I question the reasoning for that.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 4, 2013 18:41:17 GMT -8
I don't understand.
You're basically asserting that we will only talk about meta, which isn't true as proven by this game already.
That was a side step of my question as well, I realize it's situation dependent but I was asking for insight into what you think could happen, who you would want to lynch at present and what you think would come from it as information if they aren't innocent. Given that information I could personally decide whether to me that would outweigh a person's input for the next Day and whether I could support your quest for a lynch and trust in your beliefs or if I need to focus on who and what I do and don't find suspicious.
I'm not sure how wanting to preserve our lives while including as many viewpoints as possible is putting brakes on.
I'm also not sure how rushing a lynch is town pro the way you and arguably Leif from yesterDay see it as. There has been more "I think we should lynch" in this game than "I think we should lynch X because Y". That concerns me and may in fact lead to me wanting to put some brakes on because we can't afford to lynch haphazardly.
To make it clear, I'm not anti-lynch. I'm anti-lynch for the sake of lynching. I hope that makes sense in our circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 4, 2013 20:30:54 GMT -8
But Sets doing something as an innocent doesn't mean he wouldn't do it as a rogue. And I don't think that missing all the lynches is pro town. Now, this doesn't mean FoI Sets, because regardless of if he's innocent or a rogue, he most likely thinks that what he is advocating is a pro-town scenario. So (while we're doing strawmen), we're in agreement then? This is something that Sets would do as a rogue or an innocent and thus is not indicative of his status. Case closed. As for the Yasmi ban, that lowers my suspicion on Crazy (which I don't think I'd mentioned, but she was second on my list of suspicions) and maybe Leif (less so on Leif because he could just be trying for the opposite of what he did last game). Generally, one would think the more aggressively rogue-hunting people would be those that the rogue would want to ban. However, if the rogue is one of those in-the-spotlight people, it starts to look weird when all the others are banned. So therefore, I'd say it's more likely for one of these people (for clarity, i'd put sets, joly, and I in this group) to ban the quieter people: i.e., Yasmi.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 4, 2013 20:44:22 GMT -8
I had a similar first intuition, Riku. It's not out of the argument that Crazy would ban a quiet person while being a quiet person because we will mull between ourselves while she can stay quiet (as is happening right now) but I don't strongly think that it makes more sense for her to do that than to ban someone more active.
I however wouldn't rule off Leif as a "well he did this last game so he wouldn't do the opposite this game" because Leif isn't a one dimensional player. In my opinion he could be as passive this Day one as he was bold last Day one because of how I perceive his ability as a player. I also think any sort of thought of "Well Leif was the rogue last game what are the odds he's the rogue this game too?" to be any of strawman, frivolous or "wilted flower". (<3utae).
That said, if the lynch were right now and we as a town had decided that we wanted to lynch, who would you vote for? I extend this to everyone, not just Riku. Currently I'd vote Jolyma or Crazy, assuming the lynch was heading one of those ways. I'd be more reluctant but willing to vote Riku, Leif or myself if that's what we decided to do.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 4, 2013 21:10:39 GMT -8
If you look at those two statements Riku, then we're in agreement that Sets would do what Sets thinks is best regardless of his alignment. It's when you say that I'm suspicious for pointing out pro-rogue behavior that we start to diverge.
Sets...Um, we're still discussing mainly meta, in that your plan I see as antitown, and you disagreeing.
I also don't see how I sidestepped anything. You asked an incredibly vague question, a very general one. Specifically, how does lynching give us any information. Well, it depends on who it is, who does it, and who gains the most from the lynch.
(By the way, the smartbooty in me insists that I answer the question of what I would learn if they aren't innocent. I would learn that we won, of course.)
I haven't said we should rush a lynch, I'm saying we need to use the tools provided. I've said I think it's you. Riku has said he thinks it's me. You haven't really said, Crazy has set it up to say she's suspicious of me, and Leif hasn't really said.
So let's see. It looks like the most suspicion in this mostly suspicion-less game, is on me. If I'm lynched and turn up innocent, Sets, you don't think you'd learn anything at all? You don't think you could determine who would benefit the most from me gone?
If you're lynched and turn up innocent, then I would suspect people who suddenly agreed with me out of the blue. I would expect that others would suspect me for advocating your lynch on behavior that I truly feel is not in the best interests of the town. I would think, though, that Riku would gain the most from your innocent lynch, and I would lose the most from it. Riku in that he is, quite cleverly walking right between us, by seeming to support you by disagreeing with me, yet, making sure he has an escape route (this doesn't mean FOI Sets; the post he says didn't make sense in whch he suspects me for being too logical, but not much really). I would lose the most because I think I would be up next in line for pushing at you.
Right now, it seems though, that Crazy and Leif are benefitting the most from keeping their heads down and letting the 3 of us hash things out. Something tells me that you, Sets, would be more aggressive if you were a rogue, and perhaps you really do think your plan is proTown.
Riku, at the time of the ban, do you really feel I was in the more vocal group? I felt like I hadn't really contributed much at all. Now I would agree with you. The 3 of us have certainly dominated the thread so far toDay.
Sets, you said you were going to look at the ban, have you any ideas on that yet? I really didn't see anything completely unexpected in it; I figured it would be a quiet player, just which quiet player would it be. Why leave a trail on Night 1 if it can be avoided. Do you have other opinions on it? If you think it was because a vocal player needs a place to hide, like Riku has suggested, which of us do you think is most likely? Riku, same question to you, since it was your theory.
At this point, after reading, and thinking about your points and Riku's points, I can answer that for me. If that theory is the true one, I would say Riku is most likely, because he's not committing himself. He's suggesting, but no real commital in there.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 4, 2013 22:20:26 GMT -8
Sets, I'd vote Joly if I were to vote now. I'm waffling though, so I don't think I will yet. I have little impression of Leif besides his word choice.
I meant that in general as a ROMSer, you would be in the more vocal group. We've all played together before; this game does not exist in a vacuum.
I gave all the thoughts I had on the ban. You or Sets would be most likely, followed by Leif, followed by Crazy. I do not know who would be more likely between you and Sets.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Mg on Jul 5, 2013 2:54:33 GMT -8
When I think sets is a rogue, he isn't. When I think he's innocent, he isn't. He's not making my gut react like normal which makes me think he's innocent, which means he's most likely rogue. His one shot idea is a horrible one, he's also said if we're as quiet as we have been "might be better off to just lynch randomly and hope for the best" then later said "To make it clear, I'm not anti-lynch. I'm anti-lynch for the sake of lynching." which seem at odds to me. I also feel like I'm being nit-picky at the same time because I don't find him suspicious like normal. Either way, a Sets lynch is the one I'm currently most comfortable with.
I also agree that Sets and Joly are the most likely to ban Yasmi, but i'm less sure Joly could be rogue than I was yesterDay.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 5, 2013 9:25:04 GMT -8
Why would I be the most likely to ban Yasmi? Two of you have said it, but the reason given isn't one I've ever used before to choose a ban.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 5, 2013 10:22:46 GMT -8
Why would you use a reason you've used before?
It's circumstantial to the game. For instance, if I'm the rogue then I shouldn't ban you Day one because of some of the things you said during the Night, not because it's "too bold" or "something I wouldn't do" but because it would put a focus on me which due to the numbers is more likely to get a ban-reaction lynch than in a larger game where even with the same Night posts from you, it's not as dangerous to a rogue me to ban you because of the increased game size and wider focus.
Similarly, a rogue you shouldn't ban me or Riku due to your posts in the Night and at the end of the Day.
Leif might have some hesitation to ban me, but aside from that, he and Crazymg can ban pretty much anyone and not have much tied to them.
You, Riku and I have the most restrictions on who we could ban safely. I know that I didn't hand out the ban, and from what I can tell Riku didn't either. I don't think Crazymg would want to ban Yasmi first, it's one of those things where "I don't think this would happen, but maybe that is exactly why it did happen?" It more or less brings me to you and Leif.
I think Leif would ban Riku, and he's alive. So that at least is how I came to the concept of "I think it's plausible that Jolyma is the most likely to ban Yasmi."
If I had convinced myself that that was surely the case, I'd have voted you already.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 5, 2013 11:58:23 GMT -8
Except I didn't. Had I banned someone it would have been you or Riku. I'm not sure why you think I couldn't do that. I'd rather have quiet people hanging about and not digging around much than people who push back. That's why I don't understand why you think that Yasmi is the safest ban. That just doesn't make sense to me, to get rid of someone who historically isn't a high poster, and who can be misdirected.
Also, Riku says the game isn't a vaccum, then you say it's dependent on the game. I feel like I'm discussing one thing with him, then you come along and say, 'yes, but tacos', then I answer you, and Riku comes along and says, 'no, broccoli'. I can't keep up. I don't know if you're both not paying attention to what I'm responding too, or if you're both amusing yourselves by driving me batty!
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 5, 2013 12:00:11 GMT -8
Basically, Sets, I think you're attributing how you would play to me, assuming that I'd play the same way, when history should show you that I don't think the same things make sense, or at least make sense in the way that you think they do. It's making you draw incorrect conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 5, 2013 12:10:40 GMT -8
I obviously have to have my own impression of what I think you'd do which may or may not be as accurate as necessary as I am not you. Yes?
Broccoli tacos.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 5, 2013 12:32:25 GMT -8
Yes! I think...
I'll pass on the broccoli tacos, I'm going to go spend 4 hours in a small lighting booth.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jul 5, 2013 13:36:50 GMT -8
I can't really make too much of the meta argument. I don't really follow Joly saying that Sets' suggestion is suspicious. If he's made it as an innocent (and he has) that seems to leave it pretty firmly as a null tell.
So what does that tell us about Joly? That I'm not sure. Maybe it's suspicious that she pressed it. On the other hand it sort of seems a very Joly thing to do.
Regarding Sets, I don't really understand the point of a question that starts, "So we lynch someone? How does that help?" It seems overly reductionist, and demanding an answer to a question that relies much more on the "how" than the "who" seems disingenuous. I'm also a little weird out that he put himself on the list of people he'd vote for.
Riku generally strikes me favorably. I don't really have anything against him.
Crazy Mg I mostly wondered whether not getting involved in the early game fakevotes was a sign of an overly cautious rogue.
On Yasmi, I can see a case for pretty much anyone banning her, as it's a low info ban. I think it'd be more likely from a confident rogue than an less confident one, but I don't find that to be too infomative.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 5, 2013 13:47:17 GMT -8
I've often been willing to vote myself for the town's sake. I'm less willing to do so in this game since I will be agreeing to a lynch on a person that I know isn't the rogue which has pros and cons that are difficult to balance until seeing the aftermath.
I'd currently vote Jolyma or Crazymg. I'll probably make my last check in before deadline in 7 or 8 hours, but be around-ish in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jul 5, 2013 20:40:12 GMT -8
Leif, I've never seen him say it before, so all I have to go on is you saying that you thought he might have. Now you're sounding more definite about it. Meta is hard for me to sort through. On one hand we need to work together, but on the other hand, we don't want to tell the rogue what we're doing. Then, we all see things differently, so one man's idea of a great plan is another's best rogue plan ever.
I am not good at sorting out the nefarious reasons someone might do some future thing that may or may not happen. I need the black and white of the happening, or I am lost in an endless game of what ifs. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else or not, but it's the reason I prefer lynch over none.
I'm most certainly not voting myself though. Never really been the suicidal type.
Vote: Riku
You just seem to be leaving yourself open to several different directions. The certainty you seem to have about Yasmi being banned so the vocal people can hide bothers me too, when I just don't see it being that specific. The 'well, you're suspicious for this, but not that suspicious for it, and well, it's not an FOI for Sets either, even though I suspect you for suspecting him' was quite wishy washy, and I don't expect that from innocent Riku.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 5, 2013 21:18:18 GMT -8
You know... call me crazy (pun not intended), but that post doesn't feel to me like a rogue who is the person that has the highest probability of being lynched today.
Vote: CrazyMG
Subject to change.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jul 5, 2013 21:20:31 GMT -8
Actually, no. I just can't see Crazy banning Yasmi in this situation.
Unvote: CrazyMG Vote: Jolyma
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jul 5, 2013 21:51:04 GMT -8
I'm about to head off for bed and won't be up for deadline, I'll throw my vote in and it's up to Leif/Crazy whether we get a lynch in that case.
Between Riku and Jolyma, it's a Vote: Jolyma from me.
|
|