Jump to content

Archived

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

Mexal

AGOT Mafia 46.5

Recommended Posts

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.

It is a doublehanded sword, and that's why a vig needs to be very cautious when using it. However, the role can change a game dramatically. Yes, there's a chance of hitting an innocent. But if the game is going badly for team innocent, a vig kill can dramatically turn the game around.

I disagree with your statement about the vig, but I can understand the position. I still don't like you attack of Elesham however, and that part about "it'll take a lot for me to move this vote" troubles me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It is a doublehanded sword, and that's why a vig needs to be very cautious when using it. However, the role can change a game dramatically. Yes, there's a chance of hitting an innocent. But if the game is going badly for team innocent, a vig kill can dramatically turn the game around.

I disagree with your statement about the vig, but I can understand the position. I still don't like you attack of Elesham however, and that part about "it'll take a lot for me to move this vote" troubles me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And while I'm chastising, could you and Upcliff at least pretend to respect the alt rules?

I think my post shows that I have the pretend part down. It's in actually respecting the rules where I tend to struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the fun has started without me. Sorry to be late. I am reading the thread now (6 frickin' pages!)

eta: Oooooh! I got a cool Avi! Apparently we Norcross' are film makers of some kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a doublehanded sword...

I think you mean double edged. :P

Anyway, I think Prester's stance on the vigilante is unnecessarily restrictive. Especially this game, considering the coroner finder effectively removes most of the benefits relating to counterclaiming and we discover the faction of the deceased anyway. I'm not encouraging a night 1 kill or anything, but in a coroner finder game I think there are definitely benefits to a carefully chosen kill regardless of outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you mean double edged. :P

Anyway, I think Prester's stance on the vigilante is unnecessarily restrictive. Especially this game, considering the coroner finder effectively removes most of the benefits relating to counterclaiming and we discover the faction of the deceased anyway. I'm not encouraging a night 1 kill or anything, but in a coroner finder game I think there are definitely benefits to a carefully chosen kill regardless of outcome.

Bad kills cost lynches. that's my problem...

I'd rather trust the vote of the entire team than the decision of one potentially unstable element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for Prester. First, you said 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.

So your argument was that Elesham is one of the following:

1) roleless innocent and not very good at the game, and therefore a detriment to us

2) guilty and trying to set up the 'Swann defense'

3) vigilante and not very good at the game, and therefore an even bigger detriment to us, since he has the power to kill another innocent by mistake

And you clearly state that it will take a lot for you to move your vote. That was your position, based on your argument listed above there. Right?

Then people point out that there isn't a symp in the game, and you respond by saying -

Okay, in that case 1/3rd of my argument is down. I'm willing to remove vote, but not remove suspicion.

Here's what confuses me. Your response says that the fact that Elesham can't be a symp takes out 1/3 of your argument. And then you remove your vote, based on the idea that he can't be the symp. But your 3 options above - the 3 options on which you based the statement "It'll take a lot to make me move this vote" - don't say anything about Elesham being a symp. You talk about him being RI, FM, or Vig, and claim that he's a detriment in any one of those 3 situations. You never in that post say anything about him being a symp. You do add the symp suspicions later, but they aren't part of that post. And it's in that post where you say that it will take a lot for you to remove your vote.

So I'd like you to clear things up for me, Prester. What made you remove your vote? The statement "It will take a lot to make me move this vote" was based on the reasoning that Elesham was RI, FM, or Vig. Evidence was presented that Elesham couldn't be a symp. You then removed your vote. Why? Nothing had changed with regard to the reasoning you had provided when you made the statement that it would take a lot for you to remove your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basicly, it was looking unlikely anythign would come of it, everyone else had decided to put it down as a fuck up, so i thought it's better to have a vote I can use where necisary than one stuck on a one vote person. Like i said, I'm still very suspicious of him, and if there was less time, I'd have left the vote on him. I can always re place it if i need to...

And the symp thing i forgot to mention at first. Okay, so it was 1/4th of my argument gone, but either way my argument clearly wasn't a popular one, so i thought it better to withdraw, retreat and wait until I had a better case, be it on him or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad kills cost lynches. that's my problem...

I'd rather trust the vote of the entire team than the decision of one potentially unstable element.

Pssh, lynches are often as bad or worse than vigilante kills. The group think is not always especially reliable, especially if people aren't paying proper attention. I can see what you are saying, but I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as your stance indicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 1.

14 players remain: Ambrose, Caron, Elesham, Hasty, Inchfield, Jast, Lake, Lefford, Norcross, Prester, Sarsfield, Sunglass, Uller, Upcliff.

8 votes are needed for a conviction or 7 to go to night.

1 vote for Ambrose ( Sarsfield)

1 vote for Elesham ( Lefford)

1 vote for Caron ( Sunglass)

1 vote for Sunglass ( Ambrose)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

1 vote for Prester ( Elesham)

8 players have not voted: Caron, Inchfield, Jast, Lake, Norcross, Prester, Uller, Upcliff.

You have 42 hours remaining.

And your moddess likes thoughts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pssh, lynches are often as bad or worse than vigilante kills. The group think is not always especially reliable, especially if people aren't paying proper attention. I can see what you are saying, but I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as your stance indicates.

I disagree with that. Even if an innocent is lynched, team innocent does gain something: information. Seeing who pushed the certain parts of an argument helps team innocent start to make suspicions for the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basicly, it was looking unlikely anythign would come of it, everyone else had decided to put it down as a fuck up, so i thought it's better to have a vote I can use where necisary than one stuck on a one vote person. Like i said, I'm still very suspicious of him, and if there was less time, I'd have left the vote on him. I can always re place it if i need to...

So the statement "it will take a lot for me to move my vote" was essentially meaningless? All it took to get you to move your vote was for a few people to say that they weren't suspicious of Elesham?

Also, unless I'm missing something, your claim that you removed vote so you could use it "where necessary" is b.s. You aren't currently voting for anybody, right? So you aren't using your vote for any "necessary" purpose now. And as for a future "necessary" purpose....well, there's no difference between moving your vote from Elesham onto somebody else and moving your vote from nobody onto somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that. Even if an innocent is lynched, team innocent does gain something: information. Seeing who pushed the certain parts of an argument helps team innocent start to make suspicions for the next day.

If the vig plays their cards right, we get a CI. That's pretty valuable, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... done with my reread.

Many mafia generations from now, we will refer to this game as the Elesham Fiasco. :lol: Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

If it's not too late for joky, beginning of day votes, I'll vote for Hasty but only becuase I may have a crush on him/her/it/them.

If it is to late for joky, beginning of day votes, then Hasty is getting a vote for talking about existentialism (if that really is a word and really a concept.)

Except he/she/it/they didn't really mention it. Crap. I hope it's not too late for joky beginning of day votes, because I don't have a real reason.

:)

edit: Changed she to he/she/it/they. Thanks Sunglass. I don't want to offend the musculinists (as opposed to the feminists) for using the universial "she"... buying it? anyone? anyone? Damn. Sorry, Hasty, if you are a guy... I got "lady vibes" coming from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that. Even if an innocent is lynched, team innocent does gain something: information. Seeing who pushed the certain parts of an argument helps team innocent start to make suspicions for the next day.

You get data from the vigilante kill though. Admittedly you don't get the same data as with a lynching, but a carefully chosen vigilante kill can give you plenty of information to work with regardless of the actual CF result. To suggest the vigilante kill gives no information but a lynch does is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I don't really have any reason to be voting for Elesham right now, so I'm going to remove vote.

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot to say about the overall ramifications of a vig kill. It can be critical in certain situations, but where we are right now an extra kill will not effect the number of lynch opportunities in the game so long as we don't go to night (or in the case of a successful heal). A lot of people see vig kills as taking a lynch into their own hands (which it is in the case of an odd number of players), but in this situation it doesn't take away a lynch opportunity unless there is a successful heal. So long as the vig sets things up properly beforehand, there is no ill effect from using the power and I see no reason why a vig would avoid it if they have a reasonable cantidate. I mean, even in the worst of circumstances it crosses off two suspects (the vig and his target).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the vig plays their cards right, we get a CI. That's pretty valuable, don't you think?

Let's see...No and no.

Remember, there's no guarantee that the vig is innocent. Second, CIs (or VPIs) often aren't valuable at all. They can be just as wrong as anyone, and pretty likely to be nightkilled. It might make the decision of who to lynch that day a bit easier (assuming the person actually is CI, which, given counterclaims and not knowing the allignment of several roles, doesn't seem all that likely, frankly), but we can't rely on CIs to help us.

Especially if that "CI" foolishly knocked off an innocent (without giving them a chance to claim and without any information gathered from voting patterns). Yeah, we get a CF on their kill, but depending on what happened regarding that player, it may not be worth much.

I say we worry about all this if or when it happens. (And stop trying to boss our potential vig around, as they know more about their role (and allignment) than the rest of us.)

Oh, Norcross

then Hasty is getting a vote for talking about existentialism (if that really is a word and really a concept.)

Except she didn't really mention it.

...not the gender slip up move. You'd done so well at being ambiguous just a sentence before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems rather perturbing to me that Prester is portraying himself as the innocent leader here.. instructing the vigilante, laying down ultimatums and dichotomies.. It's a strong standpoint that I think has ulterior motives, especially with the almost haphazard way he jumped at my throat, and then despite saying "it is going to take a lot for me to move this vote", backs down from the vote when he is called out on bad logic. I greatly dislike the apparent viewpoints behind his words and actions.

As an aside: I have done no such rulebreaking or bending regarding the alt rule. Elesham is from Mother Russia, Elesham no like bad mans. But nobody wants me to RP anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see...No and no.

<snip>

...I was wrong. My apologies, I forgot that the vig can be aligned with either faction.

ETA: If Prester is acting like a leader thus far, then I am a cow. Opinionated is good, but it's not synonymous with leader by any means.

Share this post


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

×