xkcd

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:17 am UTC

*twiddles thumbs*

An extension would be great. Well, activity would be better, but y'know.

Let's play some games.

a-wan, make an acrostic out of GREENLOVER.

Greenlover, name as many green things as you can.

webby, guess my real name, based on my username.

Lorenz - post something, damnit!

by **webby** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Is rob too obvious to be right?

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:11 am UTC

haha, I meant full name.

But you got my first name right.

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:15 am UTC

Shite, I just realised the deadline is in <12 hours. I didn't realise that.

Will you be around at deadline Webby?

CJ said "It is now Day Three. Day Three will end 96 hours from this post, whether I officially end the Day then or not." so if he doesn't come online before the deadline, we're not getting an extension.

Which leaves us boned.

by **cjdrum** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:48 am UTC

BoomFrog is replacing Lorenz, effective immediately.

Because of this, 34 hours have been added to the day.

Votes
NONE!

5 alive, 3 to lynch.
45 hours to deadline.

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:52 am UTC

34 hours extra or 34 from now?

Also, I completely expect BoomFrog to not trust me, after Resistance 3.5

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:54 am UTC

cjdrum wrote:Votes
NONE!

5 alive, 3 to lynch.
45 hours to deadline.[/b]

Oh, so that's what reading is... Cheers

by **webby** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:30 pm UTC

Ok good, thanks Boomfrog (and cjdrum)!

I started writing a massive analysis post - I've analysed one of the three pairs so far. But I want to sleep now, so I'll complete it tomorrow (and maybe have a go at the 'full name' puzzle.

As I've said, I have some idea, but I want Boomfrog to give his opinions before revealing mine - interested to see if his views match.

by **roband** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:46 pm UTC

So, how long til BF posts? This is getting silly.

by **webby** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:25 pm UTC

I think he's in a similar timezone to me, so it's morning and he has the whole day to post.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:30 am UTC

Yep, good morning everyone. I'm going to go have a read through from back to front, but it'll take a while. Can someone recap key events? Am I confirmed town?

Webby, why not post your analysis, seemed unfair to make the replacement go first.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:22 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Yep, good morning everyone. I'm going to go have a read through from back to front, but it'll take a while. Can someone recap key events? Am I confirmed town?

Webby, why not post your analysis, seemed unfair to make the replacement go first.

I will sometime this afternoon - had a busy morning, so it's still incomplete. Basically I could tell you who I think are probably the scum now, but I don't want that to influence your opinion if possible.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:57 am UTC

Okay, I've read the current day's posts. Conclusions so far:

~~1) Webby must be scum because he is an evil bastard.~~

2) I wish Roband would defend himself, those summaries were useful.

3) A-wan seems scummy because: A) He rushed to claim when there was doubt wither the last town was seer or vanilla. This feels like scum wanting to take a gamble and claim first so that they are believed. The better plan is to let confirmed town decide the order of claimers. B) His logic has been slightly flailing such as saying Roband only ever defended Webby, then changing to he defended Webby and GL. C) GL's attack before today sounds epic, I haven't read it yet but I assume GL and Roband are not partners.

4) I'm concerned that A-wan and GL decided to bus each other to get Roband lynched tomorrow. But I'm leaning towards GL as town.

5) I like lists.

6) we can't lynch until we've picked two scum. I'll go keep reading farther back now.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:02 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Okay, I've read the current day's posts. Conclusions so far:

~~1) Webby must be scum because he is an evil bastard.~~

2) I wish Roband would defend himself, those summaries were useful.

3) A-wan seems scummy because: A) He rushed to claim when there was doubt wither the last town was seer or vanilla. This feels like scum wanting to take a gamble and claim first so that they are believed. The better plan is to let confirmed town decide the order of claimers. B) His logic has been slightly flailing such as saying Roband only ever defended Webby, then changing to he defended Webby and GL. C) GL's attack before today sounds epic, I haven't read it yet but I assume GL and Roband are not partners.

4) I'm concerned that A-wan and GL decided to bus each other to get Roband lynched tomorrow. But I'm leaning towards GL as town.

5) I like lists.

6) we can't lynch until we've picked two scum. I'll go keep reading farther back now.

I agree. I think a-wan and roband are the most likely scum pair, followed by a-wan-greenlover, followed by roband-greenlover. I have the third part of my analysis still to do, but that's the way I'm leaning.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:42 am UTC

Ok, so I'd like to look at links between players. I think I was seeing roband and a-wan as townie based on the fact that I was pretty sure they weren't werewolves, which obviously doesn't apply anymore.

roband-a-wan:

Spoiler:

I think it's very plausible that this is a scum pairing. There's agreement, distancing, and generally far more links between them than with most players. Yes, this could be because they've been the most active, but there are plenty of posts that I'm getting bad vibes from here as well.

a-wan-greenlover:

Spoiler:

I would say that these players seem to be no more or less associated than the average players in the game. This means they've either been playing extremely well, or that they're not a scum team.

roband-greenlover:

Spoiler:

Difficult one. I'm nowhere near as confident as I was before that this isn't the scum team. There's quite a lot either way. The annoying thing is that none of the current three players have even come close to being lynched yet, so distancing has been very possible, even likely. I don't think greenlover was ever going to manage to get roband lynched.

So from that, I'm going to say that the most likely scum pair is roband-a-wan. I know I've said they were the two most townie all game, but I've realised that that was due to their werewolf hunting rather than anything else - they never made a proper effort at hunting mafia. Then again, neither did anyone else really (except maybe greenlover on roband). The two scum pairings containing greenlover I consider equally likely at this stage.

Next post will have day 3.

I should note that I've been looking at the individual players as I've been going through, but haven't recorded my thoughts here. I honestly wouldn't be able to choose between them individually, which is why I have to look at the links.

I don't think there's much difference between the likelihoods of the three scum teams, I'm hoping the day 3 posts will make things clearer.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:30 am UTC

Day 3 posts:

greenlover

Spoiler:

a-wan

Spoiler:

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2711855 - Immediately claims seer. I don't like this for the reasons given above in the greenlover section. Says that he thought Ibarra and JC would be mafia with greenlover being last werewolf. This feels like an attempt to feign surprise at roband being scum. Basically, it looks like a-wan and roband, if scum, are taking the direct approach of lynching the last townie now. Slightly scummy.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2711903 - not sure that greenlover would claim cop day 1 for only a 50-50 chance of not getting lynched and a 100% chance of getting lynched the next day. Poor logic here. I agree with the suggestion that greenlover and roband could well have been distancing given that roband was never in any danger of getting lynched. Disagree with the logic on greenlover's intention to claim cop - 'a cop' is very different from 'the cop'. The rest of the post is plausible - he proves the case that it could be true. This post gives me the impression that roband-greenlover is plausible.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2711906 - It has to be hard to find, you don't want scum finding it and knowing you're the seer.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2711979 - Don't agree with points 1 or 2 (but note that I'm not going to put too much emphasis on the breadcrumb. 3 assumes that you genuinely thought JC was mafia. I thought it was reasonably obvious at the time he was going to turn out to be a werewolf and I think others did too?

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2713173 - Thinks roband is trying to bus greenlover and is tempted to add another vote on, but thinks it might be a trap. I wouldn't have considered this to be necessarily scummy - you three can vote between yourselves all you like, it's what Boomfrog and I think that matters, then the final townie will vote for the same person that we do. The obvious reason for town to wait on claiming is that whether town or scum, you want to claim last, town in the hope that scum makes a claim that can be proven false, scum to make sure they can make a plausible falseclaim. It's often best for confirmed townies to decide in which order the rest of the players claim. The roband-greenlover part of it is plausible, but only in the sense of 'it could be the case', rather than 'it must be the case'.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2714004 - the giving up part was obviously from perspective of town, where the game is over unless we decide on the one correct townie out of three. Nothing really of note here, some slightly poor logic when he nitpicks at greenlover's post.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72889&start=200#p2714048 - not out of the question, but not very strong evidence either.

roband:

Spoiler:

And that's it. I'm going to revise my previous thoughts to the following:
Most likely to least likely scum teams:
1. roband-a-wan
2. roband-greenlover
3. greenlover-a-wan

What do you think Boomfrog?

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:14 am UTC

Yeah webby, I'm going to have had more interactions with both players, because I post the most.

Greenlover has done nothing but coast throughout the whole game and a-wan has come up with a few ideas but nothing special. They seem to have actively avoided mentioning each other, only bringing each other up on the scumlists, where (as I said) they're always towards the bottom, but not close enough to be lynch targets.

I don't know what else to do. I'm being punished for posting more than anyone else. We're going to lose this, you know?

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:40 am UTC

roband wrote:Yeah webby, I'm going to have had more interactions with both players, because I post the most.

Of course, but that's not why I think the way I do. The links analysis post didn't actually come up with as much as I thought it would, mainly because we've all been working together to hunt werewolves all game. The main reason I think you're scum is not that I think you've done anything particularly scummy, but that a-wan and greenlover are reasonably unlikely to both be scum. It's possible that their whole argument was staged, because it does seem more civil than the typical kind of those arguments, but overall I think it's less likely than the explanation that one of them is town and one of them is scum.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:48 am UTC

Well, it's difficult for me to look at it objectively, because I know.

But today being the first day they start interacting has to be something in your mind?

It's impossible for me to look back at their posts now and say "this is scummy" "that is scummy", because now I know they're both scum, everything will look scummy. I'm effectively stuck.

My gameplan now has to be to try and change your mind. Which is probably equally tough because it already seems so made up.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:35 am UTC

Didn't read the connections post yet, I'm in a meeting. But GL's breadcrumb is.really shit. It feels more like something found accidentally later. It's not in the first post OR using the first words in sentences. I don't know what the expectation for breadcrumbs though, obviously any standard will make them useless.

Still I think that there would be a scum plan ready for 3-2 and "bus eachother" sounds reasonable but, "Roband sit back and lol" doesn't seem like the plan. (although that did work before)...

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:58 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:(although that did work before)

Called it. BoomFrog, if you let Resistance get in the way of a win in this game, I'm going to be really annoyed.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:06 am UTC

If you want to win then point out where the other two have slipped up and revealed their scummyness/teamwork.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:14 am UTC

But they haven't. They've avoided each other the whole game. That's all there is.

Of course I've interacted. Of course I've found things scummy. Of course I've found things not-scummy.
Avoidance is scummier than activity.

Well, I would say that, but it's all I have.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:26 am UTC

Amusingly I found this looking through Greenlover's first posts

greenlover wrote:Eh, I see a couple of problems with that strategy, roband.

the interesting thing is, why didn't a-wan find it if he was supposedly thinking that he switched his false-claim from cop to seer? If he really thought GL was scum he would have looked a little harder.

Also Roband's above post is either town who totally doesn't care, or scum who is letting his partner do the heavy lifting. I'm inclined to think it is the latter.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:29 am UTC

I do care, but what can I do?

What you've done there is find an example of exactly what I said about greenlover's 'breadcrumb' - he could have hidden so many words in a few posts, with different patterns and such.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:41 pm UTC

I was out tonight, although not much has happened. We have most of tomorrow anyway (deadline in about 19 hours?).

a-wan in particular, anything to say in response to what I said?

by **a-wan** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:57 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Amusingly I found this looking through Greenlover's first posts
greenlover wrote:Eh, I see a couple of problems with that strategy, roband.
the interesting thing is, why didn't a-wan find it if he was supposedly thinking that he switched his false-claim from cop to seer? If he really thought GL was scum he would have looked a little harder.

The thing is, I did search, I just didn't think he would put two breadcrumbs in the same post when that post was his second post. I found this in his first post:

greenlover wrote:Well, the mod being killed N0 means we can't lynch him today. Shoot.

Anyway, here are my first thoughts on the setup:
- From what I can tell, even if the town lynches perfectly...

But since I couldn't find a pattern that would make it easily presentable, I didn't mention it because it seemed like a reach. My breadcrumb hunting skills need work, obviously, since I wasn't even using the term correctly at first.

As for the other complaints about me, the biggest one seems to be that I claimed seer too fast. I've pointed out before that this is my first game, so I had no idea that the best practice would be to wait before claiming when there's two scum out of three players who aren't confirmed town. To me, the scummier thing in that situation is if you have a chance to claim but you wait. It says to me that you're concerned about making the wrong claim, but if I'm ever in that situation I will definitely let confirmed town pick the order, if that's the consensus. I can see now that it would have been better to let greenlover claim first in case he had tried to claim vanilla town.

Last thing. I never said that roband only ever defended webby. Here's what I said:

a-wan wrote:On the other hand, roband suggested an investigation of webby but only to suggest that he was always town and has been buddying him ever since. And the only time roband even raised suspicion against me was when he thought I might be accusing webby.

Then

a-wan wrote:The only time he accused me was to defend you (greenlover) and webby.

Where's the contradiction? I thought he was buddying webby. Does anyone disagree with me? I mentioned greenlover the second time I brought up roband defending webby because it only just occurred to me that by defending webby he got the added benefit of defending his partner. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe he thought it would hurt his strategy to have to defend greenlover, but it was worth it to continue to buddy webby.

Remember though, at that point he knew he was mafia and that greenlover was mafia. JC had claimed cop, and the only ones that hadn't made a claim regarding cop status were webby and greenlover. Since roband knew greenlover wasn't cop, it was a choice between JC being cop and webby being cop, which obviously favored webby. Having that extra piece of inside information obviously led roband to make some better guesses than other people made. So, whether he truly wanted to defend greenlover or not at that point, it seems worth it to buddy the person likely to be cop, especially since I had already claimed that I wasn't. And why does everybody gloss over the fact that greenlover didn't make a claim regarding cop status at that point? He's the only one that didn't.

Anyways, I have a habit of making my posts too long. So I'll end here. It's frustrating that everything seems so obvious to me, but because roband and greenlover have played so much more than I have, they know exactly what to do to manipulate everyone, but I don't so I end up looking scummy.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:59 pm UTC

Boomfrog, you want me to hunt stuff out? How about this:

greenlover wrote:(they have 4 out of the 9 votes deciding who is copped, which - even though they are opposing each other - is pretty darn significant.).

From the end, backwards:
First letter of the second word - D
First letter of the seventh word - O
First letter of the thirteenth word - C

Intervals of 5 and 6, which means.. I don't bloody know. It's just crap though, you know? My point stands that you can breadcrumb ANYTHING and hide it until you want to expose it. If you're the one doing the reveal, you're a lot more likely to be trusted too. Which is stupid.

massive ninja by a-wan, but everything he says is lies anyway, don't bother reading it

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:06 pm UTC

Also, defense time - I was the person pushing for the strategy which would give us confirmed townies.
Other people said that this was not useful.
It's proving to be pretty useful now, right? Scum is down to 2/3 for those who don't know for certain. Due to confirmed townies.

I said it would be useful to have confirmed townies, and it is. It will be, certainly. Webby and Boomfrog, you have a 2/3 chance of lynching correctly. Do it right.

by **a-wan** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:26 pm UTC

roband, your strategy was only better than mine because scum because we ended up with the unlikely scenario where scum never killed a cop. And I guess it was better for you because you get to claim towny cred.

Also, I don't see that it's entirely obvious that JC was WW. I still don't understand why he claimed cop, since that's the move that would have benefited mafia most. If people had a general feeling that JC would be werewolf, that was no doubt aided by the fact that two of those people knew he couldn't be mafia.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:36 pm UTC

The main reason I thought JC was wolfish was because he tried to link me to e_e.

Also, the mafia aren't just going to sit there and say "yes, he must be werewolf" are they? That'd be silly

O-M-G THE WINE. Deal with it, I'm just saying. In fact, it's a-wan's point which is winey, as he bought that up.

by **greenlover** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:41 pm UTC

I've used the word establish(-ed)(-ing) two times on the fora, while I've used the words "couple" "of" and "problems" numerous times.

I know that the breadcrumb is pretty much moot at this point; I forgot that breadcrumbs are basically useless in open setups. Its just that I'm slightly frustrated that people think I found it by "accident" "later". I had to re-write that post 5 times to get it to work and not be totally obvious. And it still is different from my normal posting style. >_<

Another quick thing:

But they haven't. They've avoided each other the whole game. That's all there is.

Really? I seem to remember agreeing with a-wan in, well, pretty much everything when the game began. And...

My gameplan now has to be to try and change your mind. Which is probably equally tough because it already seems so made up.

This makes me laugh. Comments like "I can't win cause you already made up your mind" or "You only think I'm scum cause I was scum in this other game" are great ways to make people doubt otherwise sound logical reasoning. Which doesn't say much about his alignment, but I still find amusing.

Oh, and its great that you two are finally attacking each other. ::munches on popcorn::

ninja'd -

a-wan wrote:Also, I don't see that it's entirely obvious that JC was WW. I still don't understand why he claimed cop, since that's the move that would have benefited mafia most. If people had a general feeling that JC would be werewolf, that was no doubt aided by the fact that two of those people knew he couldn't be mafia.

And yet:

A-wan wrote:As far as WW goes I think the candidates are (from most to least likely):

1. JC (sorry, I think lurker lynch might make sense in this case, since lurking here seems more like scum strategy than apathy)
2. greenlover
3. webby
4. Ibarra
5. roband

Is it a contraction? Perhaps. Its really up to how you look at it. However, it certainly is interesting.

by **a-wan** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

Yes, I believed he was the most likely WW at the beginning of D1. When he claimed cop, however, I began to doubt him as WW. When webby claimed cop, I still believed he was scum, but thought if he was scum then there was a good chance he was actually mafia. Here's what I said:

a-wan wrote:Second, I still trust webby so I plan on voting JC but won't hammer until he has a chance to defend himself. My only doubts right now are because claiming cop seems like something that would benefit mafia more than WW (if JC is mafia, then he just got webby to reveal himself so his partner has a chance to kill him), so it's curious that JC doesn't have a stronger supporter. It seems like WW would have been more likely to claim seer in order to reveal seer.

So where's the contradiction? In fact, I'm surprised that that no one else had the same concern.

by **greenlover** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:05 pm UTC

You said you didn't understand why people thought JC was a WW. I was merely pointing out that you were one of the first to think so, and were likely a large cause in others thinking JC was a WW, as well. Additionally, you only changed your mind after it had been (basically) confirmed that JC had lied, and, thus, was anti-town.

by **a-wan** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

You're very obviously twisting my words. Here's what I said:

a-wan wrote:Also, I don't see that it's entirely obvious that JC was WW. I still don't understand why he claimed cop, since that's the move that would have benefited mafia most.

Here's what you just said:

greenlover wrote:You said you didn't understand why people thought JC was a WW.

Of course I understood why people thought he was WW. But then he claimed cop. That should have raised flags with people. At no point did I ever say that there was no basis for him being WW, but I do believe that claiming cop was sufficient justification to believe he could be mafia. I know why you and roband knew he wasn't mafia, but I'm not sure why no one else saw that possibility.

greenlover wrote:Additionally, you only changed your mind after it had been (basically) confirmed that JC had lied, and, thus, was anti-town.

Until webby claimed, my only concern was that he was actually the cop. Especially, after everyone but you and webby had claimed not cop. Only after webby claimed cop did I begin to try to figure out why JC would claim cop if he was scum.

I'm just glad that you're twisting my words and being intentionally dense. It makes it easier for people to see the truth.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

Meh, reading so far I have GL as town, but Roband is very close. I actually believe the breadcrumb now that Roband and a-wan and I have tried to find other possible breadcrumbs and failed. It's pretty unlikely that GL predicted seer was the only role he would need to prepare a possible falseclaim for.

I'm going to bed and tomorrow I'm on a business trip but I'll try to check in on my phone to follow Webby's vote. Not that that should be necessary.

As a precaution against deadline fuck-ups: You three over there, each of you vote one of the others. That way Webby and I can hammer without waiting around.

by **roband** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:53 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Meh, reading so far I have GL as town, but Roband is very close. I actually believe the breadcrumb now that Roband and a-wan and I have tried to find other possible breadcrumbs and failed. It's pretty unlikely that GL predicted seer was the only role he would need to prepare a possible falseclaim for.

Just because we can't find another one, doesn't mean it's not there. Would you have found the 'seer' breadcrumb by yourself? Cos I wouldn't've.

BoomFrog wrote:As a precaution against deadline fuck-ups: You three over there, each of you vote one of the others. That way Webby and I can hammer without waiting around.

That's nice if all 3 of us want to vote for a different person. If I vote someone, the one I'm not voting for will either follow me or vote against me, and confuse the issue. I will be online. I'll vote myself, when I feel it best.

by **greenlover** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:14 pm UTC

a-wan wrote:
a-wan wrote:Also, I don't see that it's entirely obvious that JC was WW. I still don't understand why he claimed cop, since that's the move that would have benefited mafia most.

Here's what you just said:

greenlover wrote:You said you didn't understand why people thought JC was a WW.

Of course I understood why people thought he was WW. But then he claimed cop. That should have raised flags with people. At no point did I ever say that there was no basis for him being WW, but I do believe that claiming cop was sufficient justification to believe he could be mafia. I know why you and roband knew he wasn't mafia, but I'm not sure why no one else saw that possibility.

wait, what? You understand why people thought JC was werewolf, but you don't see how it was "entirely obvious" he was a werewolf? I...you lost me there.

a-wan wrote:Until webby claimed, my only concern was that he was actually the cop. Especially, after everyone but you and webby had claimed not cop. Only after webby claimed cop did I begin to try to figure out why JC would claim cop if he was scum.

Yes, yes, I'm not disagreeing with that part. I'm just pointing out the fact that you changed your mind doesn't mean that you weren't a large factor in a JC lynch, cause by that point he was already basically confirmed scum.

BoomFrog wrote:As a precaution against deadline fuck-ups: You three over there, each of you vote one of the others. That way Webby and I can hammer without waiting around.

Eh, okay. I'm going to vote a-wan (just cause a comes before r, I guess. It doesn't really matter.), and my vote will stay on him unless the confirmed townies say otherwise.

Vote: a-wan

by **a-wan** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:41 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:As a precaution against deadline fuck-ups: You three over there, each of you vote one of the others. That way Webby and I can hammer without waiting around.

Here's why that's a bad idea. Even if we all vote for different people, now it will probably still take all three votes to lynch mafia, but it will only take one confirmed town vote to trigger a mislynch. Now, if either webby or boomfrog votes for me, roband will immediately jump on and end the game.

I truly hope you were just baiting us boomfrog. Mafia has nothing to lose with a three way vote, and gains the ability to lynch town without a consensus between the confirmed town.

I guess if you just make sure you reach a consensus first this isn't a problem, so make sure you reach consensus first.

by **webby** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

a-wan wrote:
BoomFrog wrote:As a precaution against deadline fuck-ups: You three over there, each of you vote one of the others. That way Webby and I can hammer without waiting around.

Here's why that's a bad idea. Even if we all vote for different people, now it will probably still take all three votes to lynch mafia, but it will only take one confirmed town vote to trigger a mislynch. Now, if either webby or boomfrog votes for me, roband will immediately jump on and end the game.

I truly hope you were just baiting us boomfrog. Mafia has nothing to lose with a three way vote, and gains the ability to lynch town without a consensus between the confirmed town.

I guess if you just make sure you reach a consensus first this isn't a problem, so make sure you reach consensus first.

But how can we tell the difference between scum voting for town and town voting for scum? Town has every incentive to jump onto a lynch immediately after a confirmed townie has voted - that doesn't make them scummy.

Actually, given that I'm pretty sure that it's going to come down to either a-wan or roband to be lynched today - can you two vote for each other please?

I'll read through properly a little (but not too much) later in case there's anything in there to change my mind and I will confirm my advice to Boomfrog (which he is in no way compelled to follow) for tomorrow's lynch after the readthrough, but still going with greenlover as towniest at the moment.

Who is online