Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mexal

AGOT Mafia 46.5

Recommended Posts

Ok...so bad RP and fake-symping seem to be on the menu today. Let's take them off, shall we?

Seriously, it helps no one (except possibly the baddies, with all the chaos (and irritation) than ensues). So...why do it?

And I have to say, I wasn't very impressed with Elesham's choices. I don't believe that he didn't expect people to jump on him for making comments like "I look forward to killing, with a gun or my bare hands" (paraphrasing) even if he didn't read the role descriptions. (Which, come on, those were put up ages ago, plus the whole "brochure says no kill animal" and "big boss say no symp on safari" comments definitely make me think he's lying) So I think he may be going for "The Swann Defense"--the "oh, I'm so crazy, only an innocent would be so crazy to draw so much attention"--and it seems to be working with some (e.g. Sarsfield and Jast). I'm certainly not going to write him a free pass.

I also don't like the way he spun around and accused Prester. It wasn't "inane" logic, it was all right there in the posts.

What I really don't want to see is some sort of spitting match between Prester and Elesham. If you genuinely suspect one another (and I have a hard time believing that Elesham does suspect Prester, though I can buy that he's annoyed at him) make cases, but hurling insults isn't productive.

And yeah, as some of you have said, there is no symp. I too asked the mods. If any of the "unknown faction" roles are alligned with the baddies, they are killers with an extra role. As to whether that's the case or not, only the killers know, and it's really not worth openly speculating on (unless or until something happens in the game that makes it necessary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, it's more likely just one of our players not bothering hiding his alt. At all. As usual.

If that's the case, then they really didn't read the rules. :bang:

Alt rule: Do not discuss or hint at the possible RL identities of living players (including yourself), or present arguments based on alt speculation. Note that this rule does not simply mean you cannot explicitly say who you are on the thread; references to past games that make no attempt to hide your role in them or customizing your alt's signature is also forbidden.

While we recognize that it is impossible to avoid all metagame information, we also ask players not to mention on the thread any information about themselves which is not directly relevant to the game (e.g. their real gender, job, marital status, country of residence etc). If such information (true or false) becomes relevant (e.g. in making a defence in the game), then it should be kept at the most general level necessary to achieve its purpose in game.

Information found in posts, including vocabulary choices and posting times, may legitimately be commented on. If it becomes relevant to mention a deduction about that person, such as experience level, keep your statement as general as necessary to make your point, and do not use it to hint at who you think the player might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, it's more likely just one of our players not bothering hiding his alt. At all. As usual.

If we were allowed to talk about alts, I would classify your conclusion as being 'beyond doubtful'.

Since we aren't, I'll just have to be content with pointing and laughing at you. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello tourist friends.

I exist. Yay.

Prove it.

Without evidence to the contrary, I think it's only fair that we all assume you to be no more than a figment of our collective psych, brought out byt eh recent alt-gate scandal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prove it.

Without evidence to the contrary, I think it's only fair that we all assume you to be no more than a figment of our collective psych, brought out byt eh recent alt-gate scandal...

:cry:

You don't believe me?

Prester. He's trying to kill me by way of philosophy. It's mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this discussion so far proves is that RP is clearly a non-optimal course for players regardless of faction. Which should have been obvious to everyone already. Not that I expect any lessons will be learned this time either.

No avatar based votes from me yet. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caron, why is this even important? There aren't any symps, and an FM partner doesn't need to signal their own partner, or so I would hope.

If you're really curious to know, I hit "Add Reply" and wanted to pick a random person to vote, and scrolled down to see this:

Guess who comes first in that list, hm? And now I know my ABC's, next time won't you sing with me?

The reason it struck me as suspicious is because you seemed to have rejected the spontaneous easy decision over something which took a little more effort (as if you'd rejected your first impulse), but that's because I hadn't noticed the voting list you referred to, so thanks for clearing that up.

remove vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not sure if any of this matters or if any of you cares, so if you don't want to read set up speculation go ahead and skip this.

In a game with 14 players, we're certainly dealing with at least 3 evils, so for the purposes of this we'll be working with there being either three or 4.

In the case of 3 evils: we have to hit one of the evils before night 5 or prevent one kill by night 5. With an unrestricted healer and almost certainly at least one other role, this actually seems pretty reasonable, given that there is no symp.

In the case of 4 evils: same thing but before day 4 instead of 5. I'm really hhoping this isn't the case, and with no symps it would mean a huge, organised and effective voting base. Very, very unlikely.

So, based on this, there are very likely 3 FM to deal with, most likely one of which is a guard in addition to their other role. In a game this size and considering the powerful nature of the roles, there are likely 2 roled innocent players, one of whom is very likely a healer. This means that we probably have either 1 coward or 1 vigilante as well. I'm not going to go too far into this, since it won't really help at all other than the fact that there should be 2 roled innocents.

All this said, we should remember that we almost certainly do not lose a lynch opportunity by failing to lynch on any given day as long as we only do it once (and assuming that there are no successful heals). Remember that this is not me reccomending a lynch on day 1. We should lynch day 1 without a doubt, but I do want to remind you that we have access to a lynch-free day should we need it in the late game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are four FMs in a 14 player game, then I want to know what the mods were smoking when they decided that was a good idea, because I want some of that shit. Otherwise, I'm of the opinion that role speculation doesn't benefit team innocents any so I'll keep my mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change vote to Lefford since I really haven't got anything against Prester. That was pretty useless role speculation. Space-filling, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Change vote to Lefford since I really haven't got anything against Prester. That was pretty useless role speculation. Space-filling, anyone?

Okay, look. I told you up front what it was. I told you not to read it if you think it's worthless. I was only putting my thoughts out there. If role speculation (or in this case speculation on the number of FM) offends you so much, then you should have taken my advice and ignored it. Thank you for jumping on me because you did exactly what I told you not to do at the start of the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, look. I told you up front what it was. I told you not to read it if you think it's worthless. I was only putting my thoughts out there. If role speculation (or in this case speculation on the number of FM) offends you so much, then you should have taken my advice and ignored it. Thank you for jumping on me because you did exactly what I told you not to do at the start of the post.

You're welcome.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well I may be echoing early statements made, but I do have a problem with Prester. Specifically, I don't like this:

Remove Vote

Vote Elsham

Seriously. You're either stupid, an FM trying to seem too stupid to be an FM, or roled, but the worst at coding vigilante clues in the world.

So we either lose an innocent idiot, an FM, or an idiot innocent with the ability to then kill another innocent by mistake. It'll take a lot to make me move this vote.

First of all, I don't like the fact of the justification here. You narrow the possibilities down to a few things, alright fine. But What I really don't like is the justification of possibly losing an innocent player. Regardless of how retarded a player is, the only thing that should be criteria for a lynch is an FM or not. A player whose a retarded, moronic, idiotic, stupid innocent is STILL an innocent. I am echoing Jast statements on this, but the point does stand very strongly.

2nd, I fail to see why a symp would make it that painfully obvious that he was a symp.

3rd, I sense fear out of the possiblity that Elesham is a vigilante coming from Prester, and that he wanted Elesham dead before he had a chance to choose a shot. With that said, I think Elesham being the vigilante is as likely as someone else being the vigilante at this point, regardless of the 'breadcrumb' that he mentioned.

Why would an FM kill the vigilante, unless they were clearly hating on one of the FMs? They are, after all, equally likely (if not more so) to kill an innocent.

Personally, if i was a vigilante, the only person i'd ever consider killing is anyone who role revealed as vigilante. Unless of course we were left in a position where a vig kill was the only mathematical chance at winning.

You narrow down so interestingly here. You narrow the vigilante role to basically a regular innocent, who can kill someone who counterclaims him? You miss the whole point of the vigilante role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
their other role. In a game this size and considering the powerful nature of the roles, there are likely 2 roled innocent players, one of whom is very likely a healer. This means that we probably have either 1 coward or 1 vigilante as well. I'm not going to go too far into this, since it won't really help at all other than the fact that there should be 2 roled innocents.

Maybe I'm reading the description wrong, but does the Role List Post guarentee that there's a healer? The only part that says that "these roles may or may not be in the game" is the Unknown Faction part, the healer is listed seperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for jumping on me because you did exactly what I told you not to do at the start of the post.
:lol:

You can't just insert disclaimers, a la "Hey people, I'm about to say something that'll make you want to vote me, so don't read this, 'cause I don't want you to vote me, thanks."

You speculated on the number of FM, and also on the number and type of roled innocents. The former is ok, the latter is not, as people quite often inadvertently give away more than they may mean to, and that only helps the baddies, thus encouraging that sort of behavior is bad for the innocents.

And while I'm chastising, could you and Upcliff at least pretend to respect the alt rules? Going off the "next game" thread at Sophie's, people seemed to want to use alts, so it's more respectful to the players as well, if obeying the rules isn't really your thing.

*contemplates moving vote; decides to wait until it's damn clear the RP is over* :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, well I may be echoing early statements made, but I do have a problem with Prester. Specifically, I don't like this:

First of all, I don't like the fact of the justification here. You narrow the possibilities down to a few things, alright fine. But What I really don't like is the justification of possibly losing an innocent player. Regardless of how retarded a player is, the only thing that should be criteria for a lynch is an FM or not. A player whose a retarded, moronic, idiotic, stupid innocent is STILL an innocent. I am echoing Jast statements on this, but the point does stand very strongly.

2nd, I fail to see why a symp would make it that painfully obvious that he was a symp.

3rd, I sense fear out of the possiblity that Elesham is a vigilante coming from Prester, and that he wanted Elesham dead before he had a chance to choose a shot. With that said, I think Elesham being the vigilante is as likely as someone else being the vigilante at this point, regardless of the 'breadcrumb' that he mentioned.

You narrow down so interestingly here. You narrow the vigilante role to basically a regular innocent, who can kill someone who counterclaims him? You miss the whole point of the vigilante role.

That is how i see the role. It can harm the innocents just as bad as it can hurt the guilty. It's a role that in any but the most reliable hands is a double edged sword.

If i was vigilante, the only time I'd use it is if it was "use or lose" or someone fake revealed.

If you're uncomfortable with that, tough. Until i see it being used as a regular weapon for the betterment of team innocent, I will feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm reading the description wrong, but does the Role List Post guarentee that there's a healer? The only part that says that "these roles may or may not be in the game" is the Unknown Faction part, the healer is listed seperately.

Hmm... Right you are, the part about the roles does seem to suggest that a healer is guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×