ForAllOfThis wrote:@wam: The reason that I suggested not requesting items, is because the items requested might not actually be on offer. By giving up that information scum could take an informative guess at what you might be making. Then if you trade for something else because desired your item is not on offer, they know you've changed plans. As a result you might make yourself a really good target.
My plan effectively involves people waiting to put items up for sale (as these items are the only ones that can be traded) and then start trading for what you want. That way you can change plans based on what people are offering, and not have scum know you might not have crafted the item you wanted to. I hope that makes sense.
This is a good point. It's also quite hard for scum to organise trading with one another this way, as if they put up a fake offer and reject a similar trade from someone else they'll get themselves in trouble.
However, as I said before, coming up with a good trading plan doesn't clear you in my books. So far the only thing resembling scum hunting I've seen from you is either protecting Snark or reacting to my accusations of you, so my vote stays.
1. I said I disliked your voting pattern (on-off-on), not your reasons for voting. You seem to have over-reacted to that quite badly.
2. Mislynch results in two deaths puts us at 5-3, that's mylo not lylo. Although it's typical to NL at mylo, I wouldn't suggest it in this game when an extra NK is entirely possible.
3. I hadn't declared myself leader, but I see no-one else jumping up to get things moving. I have no desire to get to 24 hours till deadline, with little discussion about who to lynch, no items traded and us being generally in a bad position. I have no wish to see the day end abruptly either which is why I suggested no-one else voted for Snark.
1. My voting pattern being on-off-on is completely in line with observations you agree with though. My first vote was semi-RVS, semi-put pressure on because I'd noticed scumminess. After I got as much as I could from that, I removed the vote. Then Snark was actually
scummy (which you and others have also noticed), so I voted him. You're acting like me using my vote to put pressure on scummy players is scummy. I find it quite scummy of you. Hence the reaction.
2. So, despite a terminology difference (that has already been pointed out), you agree with what I said? I don't have a problem with that (in a vacuum), but it's a weird way to format your post seeing as it's between 2 things that are defenses/arguments towards me.
3. You're still missing the point, really. It's good that you want to get the restricted trading that scum will be forced to comply with going, but in the 24 hours you've given us to discuss it, we would be forced to discuss all things trade strategy and no things scumhunting. Furthermore, it seems there is a consensus in general (from the active players), so I don't like that you essentially tried to force us to talk about a topic that, at the end of the day, won't help us catch sum.
The flipside to the mylo coin is this:
D1, Lynch scum today. They can't trade usefulness to a buddy pre-death because then their buddy will get caught. Mafia still probably only have 1 NK. 6-2 after N1.
D2a, best case. Lynch scum. Mafia only have 1 NK. 5-1 going into D3. Pretty upsetting if we can't win from here.
D2b, middling case. Lynch town. Mafia only have 1 NK still. 4-2. Mylo, potentially lylo, going into D3.
D2c, Worst case. Lynch town, mafia get enough items to get an extra kill. 3-2 (lylo) going into D3
Notice how to have any chance of winning, we need to start figuring out who scum are? Farrrrr to much focus on trading from you.
ForAllOfThis wrote:Your idea for player consensus is ok but it'll lead to very little trading. We struggled to decide amongst us whether trading is a good idea, and now we're struggling to decide how to trade. Everyone is going to know who is trading what with who anyway, so if players see a trade that looked suspicous, then vote for one of the players making the trade and give your reasoning why. If other people agree, that person will then be lynched.
Thank you for at least acknowledging my suggestion. I do think yours is better, but I also think we need to start looking more solidly for scum.
ForAllOfThis wrote:It conceals the other items that we have. Scum know what's been traded, but without knowing the other items we have there is no way of them knowing what is being built.
Every trading system conceals the other items one has. Unless you say "I have a chemical, and I need a scrap, and my other items are blah, blah, blah, and blah".
[quote="ForAllOfThis"First you wrongly criticise it for concealing trades so we cant see what is suspicous, now your criticising it for not concealing trades. Your leaving me very confused.
I'm not in favor of trading systems where two people trade back and forth multiple times in order to try and give the right thing to each other, just because no one wants to say what they need in thread to conceal trades. It makes scum trading with scum too powerful.
I'm criticizing your system for claiming to conceal trades, when it doesn't at all. Your system, as I explained before, is basically equivalent to saying "I have x, and will trade it for y" because after the trade it will be easy to tell whether the trade was successful or not by whether the same people try to trade the same items again with other people.
I think everyone should be allowed exactly 1 or 2 open trades by stating "I need x, and will offer y for it". It cuts down on the mistrades that will inevitably result if people start trading with each other before both of them know whether they actually want the other person's items.[/quote]Snark I really don't think you're getting it. Where in FAOT's plan do people trade back and forth multiple times? And where did he claim it conceals trades? How does "I have x, and will trade for y" prevent scum from secretly trading with each other? Not that FAOT's does, but it's more refined and useful than your suggestion.
Also, do you think FAOT is scummy/towny because of his suggestions?
If this isn't going through your mind, you're actively lurking.