Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:06 am
I normally don't analyse roles too deeply at once but I'm normally not given a list of 28 roles that I'm supposed to figure out the alignment of so that really incited my curiosity.
Tranq wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:21 pm
These poll options seem quite meaningless.
Are people voting randomly or what?
The Tribunal of Judgment is from A World Apart, it was three civvies with BTSC plus a lynch switch and pardon. Seems pro-town imo
Sounds good. Why didn't you mention this when you voted?
I actually liked Tranq for this post. He made a good point on TH and I tend to trust people who hunt at super early game when nobody else is hunting. Not gonna put my vote here. Might put on TH.
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
OK....I got wifi on the plane...
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
@LC @BR: Is the difference in the map from earlier to current based on a host correction, or based on night 0 activity?
The only difference I noticed was the trees/forest are more pronounced
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:06 am
I normally don't analyse roles too deeply at once but I'm normally not given a list of 28 roles that I'm supposed to figure out the alignment of so that really incited my curiosity.
Oh word?
30 players, 2 secret roles. I didn't actually count them manually.
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?
Because since the poll itself no longer shows vote order some people may want to go back through the thread and track the vote order so the word aubergine was attached to in-thread votes (using the vote tags). That way you can search aubergine and bring up the votes and see the order.
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?
Because since the poll itself no longer shows vote order some people may want to go back through the thread and track the vote order so the word aubergine was attached to in-thread votes (using the vote tags). That way you can search aubergine and bring up the votes and see the order.
Ok, i previewed a vote and see how it works now. I thought y'all were literally typing aubergine every time.
Still, looks like not everyone uses the vote tags so it doesn't really work imo. The whole thing looks ridiculous
LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am
Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.
This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?
I agree with this, I've never understood this new aubergine thing.
Jack hosted a game a year ago that had a tiebreaker based on who voted last. Since the new forum system doesn't show vote order anymore, we needed to show our votes in the thread.
Searching for votes in the thread is a pain in the ass so Marmot made this fancy vote tag. The aubergine is some silly keyword people came up with at the time.
Most games don't have mandatory thread voting but since we already had a tradition of calling votes before then, we now just do with vote tags.
S~V~S wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:09 am
Yay for changeable votes! And now we know the night polls have tangible results, and we found out in a way that is not actively harmful so long as we try to avoid ties, as DH says. Good on us.
Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:27 pm
@@sabie12 you've talked quite a bit about the different poll options and ended up going with "The Honourable Tribunal". Care to walk us through your thought process on that?
Why did this vote stand out to you, when several other people engaged in discussion of what the options could mean, and some just voted with no real engagement at all? I am not trying to put you on the defensive, I really want to know. This post surprised me.
Epignosis wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:15 am
I'm going to be voting DDL tomorrow.
The speculation over the roles is an act to get involved.
Now go.
I had had that thought as well, that "helpful civ" post ftw. I may or may not have time to read his posts in prior games this weekend, leaning "not", so shortcut; people with more recent DDL experience than I, is that kind of role analysis a norm for civ DDL?
nutella wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:09 am
mac and quin get it. sloonei's approaching getting it. truthbombers unite.
I am old and unhip and haven't played for a year or so. What does this mean?
I also was wondering some of these same things. Like why I was questioned for my choice in particular when most people just kinda picked because they liked the option. And others also were trying yo figure it out. We didnt know what any of those things were so I just kinda speculated as to what they might mean.
And I also must be old and unhip and I don't know what those things mean either haha.
I will ask a lot of questions. Don't be alarmed by it, unless I am trying to be alarming.
I don't suspect DDL for discussing role alignment. It's good to be wary of roleclaims that happen in square BTSC. In A World Reborn Sorsha for the longest time had me fooled by claiming her role as Master Thief was civvie. She was indeed the Master Thief, but she was mafia.
Hello Sorsha
Black Rock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:45 amGame Dynamics
The Civvies must eliminate both baddie teams to win. Civvies who are not alive at the game's end will be able to claim this particular Win Condition.
Each baddie team must eliminate the other baddies, and have sufficient control of the game to ensure that no other faction can win, in order to achieve their Win Condition. Normally, this will occur when their team outnumbers the living Civvies.
It will be important to bear in mind that we have multiple baddie teams to compete with, along with a number of independent roles. We don't presently know much about the setup, so it's difficult to speculate about the shape and size of these teams, but as a general thing I think it's easier for baddies to blend in when there are multiple teams since they can still hunt honestly.
Keep an eye on the folks who darted in here early and, in light of the D0 poll result, pooh-poohed ties on the lynch poll. It’s a subtle way to establish a preemptive cop-out for either train-hopping later (to show they stick to their convictions) or blame-shifting to set up fall guys who tie polls that result in mislynches.
Close lynches and ties (whether mid-phase or at EOD) are valuable sources of information. Granted, that information is best in hindsight after the herd has thinned some.
We may not know who is on the Tribunal but we’re starting out with more civs than baddies (unless this game is extra-double whacky) and there are also two baddie factions, so the odds are against Tribunal being filled with one baddie team.
G-Man wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:19 pm
Keep an eye on the folks who darted in here early and, in light of the D0 poll result, pooh-poohed ties on the lynch poll. It’s a subtle way to establish a preemptive cop-out for either train-hopping later (to show they stick to their convictions) or blame-shifting to set up fall guys who tie polls that result in mislynches.
Close lynches and ties (whether mid-phase or at EOD) are valuable sources of information. Granted, that information is best in hindsight after the herd has thinned some.
We may not know who is on the Tribunal but we’re starting out with more civs than baddies (unless this game is extra-double whacky) and there are also two baddie factions, so the odds are against Tribunal being filled with one baddie team.
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
But what if there's a baddie team with nobody on the tribunal, and hypothetically one of their own is up for a lynch? They'd want to avoid that tie, wouldn't they?
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
But what if there's a baddie team with nobody on the tribunal, and hypothetically one of their own is up for a lynch? They'd want to avoid that tie, wouldn't they?
Yeah if someone votes to break ties that's also worth looking at but what I'm saying is if someone votes to cause a tie, and especially if that tie then breaks against whoever they voted for, that's a red flag for me
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
This, we don't know who is on the tribunal or their affiliation. Pushing a tie is pushing a lynch out of the hands of the voters into the hands of ... whoever.
I would find intentionally pushing a lynch suspish under these circumstances, too.
Did Chuck say why he voted for DDL? I skimmed, I must have missed it. Off to get my dog,squeee!! BBL
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
Knowing more than meets the eye is far from the only reason that ties happen. At EOD it does look suspicious but it happens many times during the day phase as well. Some people have hunches about and reads on people that lead them to tie up the poll. Poll momentum shifts as the day progresses as well. Your post is very short-sighted, reactive, and dismissive. Anyone else posting it and I’d be somewhat suspicious. But you’re you, so I don’t know if the needle moves much.
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
But what if there's a baddie team with nobody on the tribunal, and hypothetically one of their own is up for a lynch? They'd want to avoid that tie, wouldn't they?
Yeah if someone votes to break ties that's also worth looking at but what I'm saying is if someone votes to cause a tie, and especially if that tie then breaks against whoever they voted for, that's a red flag for me
So you're saying votes are worth looking at in any context. Agreed.
Anyway I've ranked the people who have currently voted from most to least suspicious as of me typing this post without being linkied into any other votes:
Cbob - "His posting" is a funny but ultimately hollow and wormy way to explain the Colin vote
Chuck - Did not give a reason for his DDL vote which IIRC came close to if not directly after Epi said he'd be voting DDL. Chuck pulling up to the train station early AF to save himself a seat.
Sloonei - Voting for anyone based on other people's reasons for suspecting people is suspicious to me. Make your own points. Stand on your own ground.
TH - Early vote for Sorsha for a hollow, funny reason. Doesn't look serious. Sorsha's not done anything overtly suspicious. Could be buddying/distancing but not worth losing my shit over instantly.
Epi - His DDL vote makes sense, he gave a good reason and was consistent.
(In general I always think that pushing for a tie is a lame strategy. There's always a mechanism for deciding the result, and that mechanism always takes the responsibility of the outcome away from the hands of the voters, and that's never preferable. The existence of the tribunal does not change that. We should avoid any situations that would make the tribunal relevant, but none of this is really special to this game.)
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
But what if there's a baddie team with nobody on the tribunal, and hypothetically one of their own is up for a lynch? They'd want to avoid that tie, wouldn't they?
Yeah if someone votes to break ties that's also worth looking at but what I'm saying is if someone votes to cause a tie, and especially if that tie then breaks against whoever they voted for, that's a red flag for me
So you're saying votes are worth looking at in any context. Agreed.
I'm also saying that I'm measurably more critical of tied votes this game now that we know actual players and not random chance are deciding the ties.
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:40 pm
Sloonei - Voting for anyone based on other people's reasons for suspecting people is suspicious to me. Make your own points. Stand on your own ground.
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
This, we don't know who is on the tribunal or their affiliation. Pushing a tie is pushing a lynch out of the hands of the voters into the hands of ... whoever.
I would find intentionally pushing a lynch suspish under these circumstances, too.
Did Chuck say why he voted for DDL? I skimmed, I must have missed it. Off to get my dog,squeee!! BBL
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:25 pm
To me the only reason a person would vote to tie a lynch that they weren't in danger in is because they are on the tribunal or know who is and they want to save the person that is in the lead during the un-tied period.
Significantly more plausible baddie motives RE: Ties.
But what if there's a baddie team with nobody on the tribunal, and hypothetically one of their own is up for a lynch? They'd want to avoid that tie, wouldn't they?
Yeah if someone votes to break ties that's also worth looking at but what I'm saying is if someone votes to cause a tie, and especially if that tie then breaks against whoever they voted for, that's a red flag for me
So...
Your strategy is to examine polls that get made into a tie and polls that do not get made into a tie?
Tranq wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:21 pm
These poll options seem quite meaningless.
Are people voting randomly or what?
As someone who has played several LC/BR games I don't know if I believe that you believe that anything in the game is meaningless.
This is why I voted for Tranq.
Ah, ok thanks Sloonei.
Do you have an opinion on this?
After thinking about it, I don't understand why Tranq said that after having played Long Rock games in the past, so maybe I should just ask him: [mention]Tranq[/mention] what made you say this after having played their games in the past where the polls - especially the first poll - were meaningful?
Also though, I'm less inclined to vote on day 1 one of the people who has been gone for years from our site. I'm not saying I won't vote for one but the evidence would have to be strong.
DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:40 pm
Anyway I've ranked the people who have currently voted from most to least suspicious as of me typing this post without being linkied into any other votes:
Cbob - "His posting" is a funny but ultimately hollow and wormy way to explain the Colin vote
Colin - "No U" vote was cheeky but still bad.
Chuck - Did not give a reason for his DDL vote which IIRC came close to if not directly after Epi said he'd be voting DDL. Chuck pulling up to the train station early AF to save himself a seat.
Sloonei - Voting for anyone based on other people's reasons for suspecting people is suspicious to me. Make your own points. Stand on your own ground.
TH - Early vote for Sorsha for a hollow, funny reason. Doesn't look serious. Sorsha's not done anything overtly suspicious. Could be buddying/distancing but not worth losing my shit over instantly.
Epi - His DDL vote makes sense, he gave a good reason and was consistent.
