|
I think it's probably bad to reveal your room, less so this round but more and more on future days.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Fast Luck posted:I think it's probably bad to reveal your room, less so this round but more and more on future days. Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Plurality vote, there will never be a no lynch this game unless we intend it to happen. Boy I just suck at reading posts today don't I
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I see a lot of ballot conversation but not a lot of scumhunting. Like we can do whatever we want to control the ballots but I think more important is actually finding and plorping scum. Byers2142 posted:we have to assume that we either use them randomly This is what the OP says happens with the votes, yes? It's not majority in the voting booths but a randomized winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Okay. Why wait? In fact, what is the debate? Revealing what room(s) you're in and who you are sending your ballot to is the only way to have a hope at tracking ballots. It is absolutely something scum do not want to have tracked. I can see arguments for the power targets being revealed or not, but not wanting people to know who you gave your ballot to is scummy in this game. My question to MMM is about finding a way to verify specific ballots. To wit: in each room we were given a voter number (Voter 1, Voter 2, etc.). When I give my ballot away, does the person I gave it to have the same number? If so, we can track the individual ballots much easier by referring to each ballot as ROOM-NUMBER.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
I don't see the problem with being open with our ballots/who we're voting for, at least as far as roleblock goes. Like, what do I care if scum knows who I vote for a roleblock? What're they gonna do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I see a lot of ballot conversation but not a lot of scumhunting. Like we can do whatever we want to control the ballots but I think more important is actually finding and plorping scum. wall monitor is scum; he didn't even respond to my vote on him which I didn't bothering making a case for, because he can't. His vote on Ernie was that bad, he even knew to remove it as soon as Ernie responded to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Why wait? In fact, what is the debate? Revealing what room(s) you're in and who you are sending your ballot to is the only way to have a hope at tracking ballots. It is absolutely something scum do not want to have tracked. I can see arguments for the power targets being revealed or not, but not wanting people to know who you gave your ballot to is scummy in this game. Ah! Interesting. Also, ballot tracking only works in a world where MMM did not design the game to counter this tactic (in a likely punishing way), which is why some (such as myself) are against this idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I don't see the problem with being open with our ballots/who we're voting for, at least as far as roleblock goes. Like, what do I care if scum knows who I vote for a roleblock? What're they gonna do? If we roleblock scum, that scum won't make the nightkill if he knows up front he's roleblocked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
wall monitor posted:Deadline is in about 24 hours. I have an irrational hatred of no-euphemism D1's and might just hammer myself rather than let D1 go without a euphemism, if it looks like it might go that way. I was just looking over wall and this post seems really townie to me. Even though he obviously means "enthusiasm," I think it's coming from a townie perspective. The vote on Ernie is bad but eh. This doesn't read like defeated scum, especially when he's only -3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Ah! Interesting. If we trying tracking them and it becomes clear that it's hurting us, we stop. But refusing to do it from the start denies us the opportunity to even try to use it. You're using people's fear of the unknown to make them avoid doing something that could be hugely helpful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:If we roleblock scum, that scum won't make the nightkill if he knows up front he's roleblocked. I mean, assuming there are scum in the rooms, which is probable, then couldn't they just withhold their kill to draw a lynch instead if the vote ISN'T on them? It seems like we're having ballot box WIFOM here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Whelp, voter number does not follow ballots. I'm in the roleblocker room. I'm giving my ballot to Ernie tomorrow. I haven't decided on my target yet, but feel like that should be talked about in the rooms instead of here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
When did MMM confirm this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Byers, I don't see any purpose in talking about anything in the rooms instead of here. Can you explain that? That information can then easily be shared in the scum doc, so scum will have all that data, while the townies in the thread won't, giving scum an information advantage. I think we ought to roleblock Mac or Asiina for being in the roleblock room, and then target the cop and doctor on the other one of them. Then tomorrow the cop can confirm if that person was town or scum (and out themselves as the prior day's cop because it doesn't mean they're cop again). We can track to see if former cops end up being scum so we know if their results are suspect. In the future we shouldn't reveal what room we're in. I do think it can be useful to be open about whom we've passed our ballots to, since that confirms we're not scum passing to scum. The tricky thing is scum can pass to a town player, and then if that town player announces who they're passing it to the next day, the scum will know a) the power their ballot originally had, and b) who now is in that room.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:When did MMM confirm this? Via PM, just now. I asked him if my voter number would stay with my ballot, so since I'm Voter 3 in the roleblock room would Ernie be Voter 3 tomorrow? MMM said he hadn't planned for it to work like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I was just looking over wall and this post seems really townie to me. Even though he obviously means "enthusiasm," I think it's coming from a townie perspective. The vote on Ernie is bad but eh. This doesn't read like defeated scum, especially when he's only -3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
What happens if the roleblock blocks the roleblocker? Nothing, I'm assuming?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
The numbers are made each day
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Euphemism as in "cuddle" or whatever? why can't everyone just use the same language? let's stick with "plorp"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:What happens if the roleblock blocks the roleblocker? Nothing, I'm assuming?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
I'll get vote finder for you guys when I get home
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Byers, I don't see any purpose in talking about anything in the rooms instead of here. Can you explain that? That information can then easily be shared in the scum doc, so scum will have all that data, while the townies in the thread won't, giving scum an information advantage. I think we ought to roleblock Mac or Asiina for being in the roleblock room, and then target the cop and doctor on the other one of them. Then tomorrow the cop can confirm if that person was town or scum (and out themselves as the prior day's cop because it doesn't mean they're cop again). We can track to see if former cops end up being scum so we know if their results are suspect. If you don't announce what room you are in, how can we know that the ballot you sent was received? You have to announce the room to have a hope at tracking the specific ballot. I think that there is some value in holding target discussions in the rooms so that if we do get a room with no scum in it, the targets are a surprise to scum that night. But the discussions in the rooms should be made public the next day. Someone explain why we're roleblocking a roleblocker?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:If we trying tracking them and it becomes clear that it's hurting us, we stop. But refusing to do it from the start denies us the opportunity to even try to use it. You're using people's fear of the unknown to make them avoid doing something that could be hugely helpful. Byers, could you answer a hypothetical question for me? Day 1, player A announces they are passing their ballot to player B. Day 2, player B announces they did not receive a ballot from player A. What is your assumption?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:wall monitor is scum; he didn't even respond to my vote on him which I didn't bothering making a case for, because he can't. His vote on Ernie was that bad, he even knew to remove it as soon as Ernie responded to it. loving hell, I've been told in the past that making a big deal about getting voted on is something only scum would do, and here I'm being told that not defending yourself is something only scum would do. Which the gently caress is it? I've said repeatedly that I messed up, that I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have and thought Ernie was quoting another one of my posts, and in that context the statements he made made me think he was scum. Once the context was changed I likewise changed my vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:If you don't announce what room you are in, how can we know that the ballot you sent was received? You have to announce the room to have a hope at tracking the specific ballot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:If you don't announce what room you are in, how can we know that the ballot you sent was received? If two people say they passed a ballot to X, and X says yes, they received two ballots You'd only need to reveal rooms in the event of a discrepancy
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Byers, could you answer a hypothetical question for me? I can't answer that; the hypothetical is too vague. Who are the players? Who got the ballot (which we know because we've shared the rooms we're in)? If someone else is in them that shouldn't be, how did they get the ballot? That's why we should share openly, because we can look for the patterns and the discrepancies, but your question ignores the whole of the issue to try and focus on a singular event. You can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I was just looking over wall and this post seems really townie to me. Even though he obviously means "enthusiasm," I think it's coming from a townie perspective. The vote on Ernie is bad but eh. This doesn't read like defeated scum, especially when he's only -3. No I actually do mean euphemism, it's my response to the people who're pushing to stop using the word lynch due to political correctness and inserting various euphemisms instead. So my thought was to just take the direct route and use 'euphemism' as a euphemism for lynch. So instead of saying 'let's lynch someone', I say 'let's euphemize someone' It's a stupid word-swap choice on purpose and I look forward to the day when people start using lynch again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:If only one person says they passed a ballot to X, and X says yes, they received one ballot Three people say they passed a ballot to X. One of those three dies in the night. X gets two ballots. What room was the now dead player in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Three people say they passed a ballot to X. One of those three dies in the night. X gets two ballots. What room was the now dead player in? Passers dying does not prevent the receiver from receiving, I believe. Byers2142 posted:I can't answer that; the hypothetical is too vague. Who are the players? Who got the ballot (which we know because we've shared the rooms we're in)? If someone else is in them that shouldn't be, how did they get the ballot? That's why we should share openly, because we can look for the patterns and the discrepancies, but your question ignores the whole of the issue to try and focus on a singular event. You can't do that. Nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Before people jump on this train, I'd like for this thread to not be the place to debate how offensive our wording will be. Use the word you want and don't be an rear end about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Let's just say, I feel that scum are going to be able to play some heavy wifom with ballot tracking somehow, maybe even confirm scum as town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Byers, could you answer a hypothetical question for me? I've already answered this question. Asiina posted:If everyone claims their ballots each day we can always account for all 15. If ballots are missing then we know which rooms have been compromised. If I say I'm giving my roleblocker ballot to Ernie and he doesn't get it we know I'm lying, Ernie's lying, or someone messed with the transaction, which isn't useful on its own but we can know for sure that 1 of the rooeblocker votes is compromised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
The most likely thing is someone getting more ballots than they were expecting, because someone else who was to receive a ballot dies in the night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:To avoid roleblocking someone that might get the cop or doctor powers. I'm not too confident on those powers being worth anything this game. The needed coordination for town to get the powers to target who they want and the randomness of who gets results makes both of those powers really weak, but the roleblocker power is probably the best weapon we have if we can successfully target scum. I'd rather lose the doc and cop to have full use of the roleblocker power. wall monitor posted:loving hell, I've been told in the past that making a big deal about getting voted on is something only scum would do, and here I'm being told that not defending yourself is something only scum would do. Which the gently caress is it? Depending on context, both can be scummy. And I voted you based on the context you thought you were voting. The post you thought he'd quoted was the post about waiting three days. I've stated before that your plan was a perfect plan for scum to concoct to make ballot tracking and such worthless. You voted Ernie in reaction to thinking he'd cased that post. Even if he had, I find you're kneejerk aggressive defense to be scummy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Depending on context, both can be scummy. I don't even loving know anymore. I can't win with you, can I?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
jon joe posted:Let's just say, I feel that scum are going to be able to play some heavy wifom with ballot tracking somehow, maybe even confirm scum as town. I have no doubt that scum are going to be able to mess with it somehow, but either they mess with it and we have no way of knowing it happened or they mess with it and because we were completely open we were able to track it in some way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
jon joe posted:Passers dying does not prevent the receiver from receiving, I believe. No, but now scum can hide because there's no way to know whose ballot is missing. When people die in this game, they will take information we can use with them if we do not claim openly on the day of the action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:03
|
|