Sart

Mid-Range Game 27: Quarantine

389 posts in this topic

@Kynedath, I would find that position oddly contradictory and suspicious if I didn’t feel much the same way myself. :P

That said, Day 1 lynches do usually need to happen, and this game isn’t an exception to that, so since it’ll be a shot in the dark, for now I’ll place a vote on Elenion. And since I feel like trying this game, I’ll even do it in RP form. Edit: I’ll also poke @Elenion, though I have no doubt he’ll be active.


Kadal rifled through the camp supplies. “There’s meant to be more chalk, more acid, more...everything!” He thundered. His big frame began to strain and shake as he grew angrier. “Someone here has been stealing from the supplies, trying to make sure we don’t make it out of here alive. Mr Klenion, get over here and tell me to my face it wasn’t you!”

His face wasn’t one anyone really enjoyed looking at on the best of days, but the shades of red and purple it was exhibiting now would have been almost artistic had his visage not been so bulbous.

Edited by Jondesu
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Klenien pushed his way through the supply tent's door. His slim frame cast a rather unimposing shadow into the tent.

"I'm afraid that's all we have, Kadal. I'm as invested as the rest of us in getting home. Maybe more, because I've got a girl waiting for me."

He took a second to flash the ring that he now wore on his fourth finger. He was far too happy about his recent engagement, but at least it meant that he spent less time complaining about his relationship woes.

"Perhaps we should appoint someone to find more supplies. That way there is no tussle over the map. Perhaps someone who the enemies among us would not feel inclined to kill as they searched."

Mr. Klenien paused as he saw the gun in the pile.

"Now that, that's going to give us some trouble, and our enemies as well. They can't afford to lose people in a fight, but if they can get it then it would be very bad for us. I can't afford to risk my life for it--my darling would kill me--but somebody is going to have to do it."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will publicly announce i am going for the map. I'd rather get more items now, rather than wait until we have dangerously low numbers of villagers.

Personally, i would recommend not going for the gun. The eliminators probably he a quick player who will grab it, and if they don't, we lose to many people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the eliminators have a quick player, they would still need to expose themselves to make a grab for the gun.

But that won't really matter if everybody is grabbing for it. Seeing as we only have one gun, and it won't go anywhere if we don't use it... I would support not using it this cycle.

Also, I do not plan to go for the map. You can take that as IKYK or whatever but I figure somebody else has probably already decided to go for it.

 

I would do an RP but I have regrettably never read this book.

 

D1 lynches are important I guess, so lets get things moving. @livinglegend livinglegend have a poke until you arrive on the scene.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get out of character for a second and ask:

@Sart If 2 Quick players and one normal "slow" player go for the gun, we know that it will cause a fight for the gun. Would the fight be guaranteed to kill the Slow player (because they have no chance of getting the gun), or will it have no chance of killing them (because they're too slow to fight for the gun)?

The answer to this question will determine the optimal gun strategy for this game. If it's guaranteed to kill the slow player, only village quick players should go for the gun, and that will keep the body count down. If it has no chance of killing the slow player, at least 1 village slow player should go for the gun in case the elims don't have any quick players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenny didn't like being called slow. Even if he couldn't read, he was just as sharp with a gun as anyone else. 

"Anyone seen Lenny?" a voice in the camp asked. It was Drake. Lenny didn't have any problems with Drake, but he did have one of Drake's knives. That would have to stay hidden until Lenny was transferred.

Lenny took one last longing glance at his accumulated treasures, then replaced the tarp and pushed in the dirt he'd displaced to make his little cache. Once he was satisfied no one else would be able to tell the place, Lenny marked the grave by stacking three little rocks on top of each other and pushing the bottom on into the ground until it was nearly buried. Then, he hustled back into camp.

It didn't take long to find Drake. He was hovering near the pile of new treasures. He seemed to be arguing over the gun with the other soldiers.

"You wanted to see me, sir?" Lenny asked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again I'm sorry for any flavor I get wrong. I'm just trying to be better about rp in these games.

So, what say we have everyone jump at the gun and let the gods of Luck and Chance decide the game? I just had to get that off my chest. While that would be mad fun, we probably ought to work more delicately than that.

I shared the same feeling as A Joe In The Bush, but since you're already headed for the map it's all yours. We can work from there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, livinglegend said:

So, what say we have everyone jump at the gun and let the gods of Luck and Chance decide the game?

I feel like that might be... *jumping the gun* B)

Somebody needed to say it.

True to my word, livinglegend. Glad you are on the scene, and you don't strike me as a chalk hoarder (maybe a knife hoarder, but my character would not be aware of that).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Caesura 

Mr. Klenien saw another face looking inside the tent, but they seemed content just to watch.

"Out there, whomever you are, what do you think about these items?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can't say for sure, sir." Lara stepped further into the tent, and surveyed the pile of supplies. "There's certainly not a lot, but if we are careful I'm sure we can make do."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to vote just yet - trying to get a bit more of a feel for things first, so I'll wait til a few more people have chipped in.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rose-Mary rubbed her face with a hand. She had seen a lot out here, much of which wouldn't be believed back home, but never anything like this. But she had seen and heard enough to know about the rumors about strange people controlled by the wild chalklings. And that worried her.
"Ugh. Joel, was it? Yeah, going for the map seems a good idea. We need more stuff, or we're toast. All this talk of 'execution' is really worrying, and grabbing a gun definitely seems like a bad idea. Seriously. Who even put a gun in there in the first place? If we are going to look for these...traitorous elements, we should be careful."
If there was someone in the group who really was a traitor, they should be eliminated. But she didn't yet know enough to just condemn someone to death, especially not someone who could just be an ordinary soldier. 

...and that pretty much sums up my own views on the situation. If there's enough evidence to lynch someone first day, I'm all for it, but I don't think it's 100% necessary. As for the gun...well, I just hope we have a village Quick who can grab it. Although, that might not be a good idea, if the elim team sends a Quick after it as well.
More thoughts later.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kynedath said:

Myka sulked in the corner as he watched the rest of the crowd rage over the small pile of supplies left to them. That wasn't the most pressing matter on his mind, his plans were destroyed. He crumpled a paper in his right hand. It had contained the apology he had wanted to give to Lorissa. Now with this quarantine, his plans to escape were completely botched. He took a swig of his canteen water and looked around. The talk had just barely begun and nobody had said anything meaningful. Maybe he should start?

"Look guys," he said at a normal volume, not caring who heard or responded "I don't want to just go and get someone 'eliminated' as the brass so politely called it, so lets not get too riled up over nothing, okay? We all want to go home, lets just keep our cool and figure this out logically."

With that, Myka slumped back against the wall and tried to wipe some of the dirt off of his face, succeeding only in smearing it across his forehead.

 

I've never been a fan of day 1 lynching, but I know that I can't deny that it is necessary. I'm going to refrain from voting today unless I see something that clearly looks suspicious or if I find some sort of hard proof that somebody is an eliminator. But until the second cycle, I don't want to kill someone for absolutely no reason.

@Kynedath, this immediately strikes me as off. You want someone to die, but you're not prepared to make any alignment indicative actions to contribute to said death? The only reason someone needs to die on D1 is to generate information, and you're taking an approach that decreases the information generated. Whether you're involved or not someone will die. Kynedath, until you can convince me that this idea isn't one that actively harms the village and hides your own alignment.

6 hours ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

I will publicly announce i am going for the map. I'd rather get more items now, rather than wait until we have dangerously low numbers of villagers.

Personally, i would recommend not going for the gun. The eliminators probably he a quick player who will grab it, and if they don't, we lose to many people.

@A Joe in the Bush, equally, the village ought to have a quick player. If a village quick player, and an eliminator both go for the gun, we have a 50/50 chance of killing an eliminator, which presents better odds than those we'll find elsewhere. I might suggest that each village quick player flips a coin, and goes for it on heads. This ought to minimise the likelihood of multiple going for it, whilst presenting a significant enough threat to the eliminators that they may be dissuaded from going for the gun themselves.

1 hour ago, A Budgie said:

Rose-Mary rubbed her face with a hand. She had seen a lot out here, much of which wouldn't be believed back home, but never anything like this. But she had seen and heard enough to know about the rumors about strange people controlled by the wild chalklings. And that worried her.
"Ugh. Joel, was it? Yeah, going for the map seems a good idea. We need more stuff, or we're toast. All this talk of 'execution' is really worrying, and grabbing a gun definitely seems like a bad idea. Seriously. Who even put a gun in there in the first place? If we are going to look for these...traitorous elements, we should be careful."
If there was someone in the group who really was a traitor, they should be eliminated. But she didn't yet know enough to just condemn someone to death, especially not someone who could just be an ordinary soldier. 

...and that pretty much sums up my own views on the situation. If there's enough evidence to lynch someone first day, I'm all for it, but I don't think it's 100% necessary. As for the gun...well, I just hope we have a village Quick who can grab it. Although, that might not be a good idea, if the elim team sends a Quick after it as well.
More thoughts later.

@A Budgie, I think it important that we at least deter the eliminators from acquiring the gun. We don't have many players this game as is - 16, with likely three eliminators, and a thief. With twelve villagers, if the lynch and kill are on a villager each turn, the game could end in 4.5 cycles. If the eliminators get the gun, and kill a villager, the game could end in four cycles. Given cycle one discussion is muted normally anyway, we need to maximise the time we have discussion going. As such, I propose to focus analysis on whoever acquires the gun, assuming an eliminator doesn't get killed in the process of acquiring it.

Thinking about it, what are peoples' thoughts on agreeing to lynch any player who gets the gun? Such an agreement ought to act as an ultimate deterrent to anyone going for the gun.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we seriously going to have the age old debate of day one lynches again? Yes, day one lynching isn't great, and almost always lynches a villager. But it does give us information, which we need in order to identify voting patterns and stuff, figure out who was defending who, and start us off. Otherwise the elims start off with a kill during the night (I better check the rules to double check that there is actually a night lol) and we have no information from the first day. I mean yeah, the items might give us some interesting information regarding who wants what, but we really do need to start somewhere.

For now, I will vote Ronald. Ronald McDonald is a clown, and clowns are terrifying. (also, you haven't said anything yet, @Alvron )

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

Are we seriously going to have the age old debate of day one lynches again? Yes, day one lynching isn't great, and almost always lynches a villager. But it does give us information, which we need in order to identify voting patterns and stuff, figure out who was defending who, and start us off. Otherwise the elims start off with a kill during the night (I better check the rules to double check that there is actually a night lol) and we have no information from the first day. I mean yeah, the items might give us some interesting information regarding who wants what, but we really do need to start somewhere.

For now, I will vote Ronald. Ronald McDonald is a clown, and clowns are terrifying. (also, you haven't said anything yet, @Alvron )

 

I'm not sure the debate is over whether we will have one, Steeldancer, as there appears to be a consensus that one will occur. What I'm instead challenging is the notion of having one, and supporting one, but refusing to engage.

I find it interesting that you comment as you have. I think it could quite conceivably be an attempt to seem like you're contributing whilst saying something entirely uncontroversial. If I were to don my tin foil hat, I might even question whether it is intended to portray Kynedath's actions in a far less suspicious light.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

I'm not sure the debate is over whether we will have one, Steeldancer, as there appears to be a consensus that one will occur. What I'm instead challenging is the notion of having one, and supporting one, but refusing to engage.

I find it interesting that you comment as you have. I think it could quite conceivably be an attempt to seem like you're contributing whilst saying something entirely uncontroversial. If I were to don my tin foil hat, I might even question whether it is intended to portray Kynedath's actions in a far less suspicious light.

I commented on that because it was the only thing I had any thoughts on. I don't really know what to do with the gun, besides the fact that I don't want it. I don't really want to RP, and I don't really have any other brilliant thoughts. Besides maybe encouraging people to talk in PM's but remember PM safety. Idk, I'm feeling a little more paranoid right now. I've been thinking about the meta and how useless we are at finding eliminators through analysis... I think we've been going about it wrong, and I have some ideas I want to try, but none of them are at all useful until we've lynched someone and we've had discussion. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

@Kynedath, this immediately strikes me as off. You want someone to die, but you're not prepared to make any alignment indicative actions to contribute to said death? The only reason someone needs to die on D1 is to generate information, and you're taking an approach that decreases the information generated. Whether you're involved or not someone will die. Kynedath, until you can convince me that this idea isn't one that actively harms the village and hides your own alignment.

Alright, here we go again! This is the exact same stance I've taken on day 1 lynches as every other time I've played SE. Here is my reasoning.

I do not like being a part of day 1 lynches because I have been lynched day 1 and I know what it feels like to be kicked out of a game that you're really excited about for absolutely no reason. I hate that feeling and I don't want to be a contributor to that. It's unfair and honestly I think that it's pretty mean.

That being said, having had this argument MANY times before, I recognize that it is our main way of getting information. Lynching is how we win, I understand that. But I'd rather not do so f it makes someone feel terrible like day 1 lynching does. Therefore, I don't vote on day 1 as a general policy because of the way that it has no logic or reasoning behind it other than pure luck.

The reason I encourage it without partaking is because I know it is necessary. It's almost like voting in an election IRL. If we all stopped, the election would be decided by like fifteen people, so instead of trying to convince others not to vote as well, I decide to let them us their own judgement on whether or not they vote, and whom they vote for. We're all capable of making those types of decisions, so rather than try to fight the gathering of information, I watch from the sidelines and don't partake in what I feel is unfair. It's how I've always done it, feel free to go back and check.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey GUys sorry I haven't been active yet. I'm getting a new puppy today so I have been busy puppy proofing the house! I will be on later today though I promise.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

@Kynedath, this immediately strikes me as off. You want someone to die, but you're not prepared to make any alignment indicative actions to contribute to said death? The only reason someone needs to die on D1 is to generate information, and you're taking an approach that decreases the information generated. Whether you're involved or not someone will die. Kynedath, until you can convince me that this idea isn't one that actively harms the village and hides your own alignment.

I am going to tentatively place a vote on Orlok Tsubodai for this. Kynedath, as he already stated, has always taken this stance. Sure, it isn't optimal play, but it is consistent play for him, and unless he is the only Eliminator in the game, we'll get plenty of other information without his voting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wait," said Mr. Klenien, "are we allowed to have secret conversations [PMs]?"

"Oh look, and there's Mya. What do you think we should do about the gun?" @BrightnessRadiant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there, checking in because I just woke up not too long ago lol. My thoughts on the discussion so far? Yes I advocate the lynch. (I'll get back with you on who I'm voting for after I eat breakfast/lunch)

What happens if we all just say what we're going for in the supply pile? Will it help us keep things out in the open so less is unknown about who takes what? And we can watch people argue in thread about what they want(: LOL (hunger games style) 

14 minutes ago, Elenion said:

"Wait," said Mr. Klenien, "are we allowed to have secret conversations [PMs]?"

"Oh look, and there's Mya. What do you think we should do about the gun?" @BrightnessRadiant

Mya looked up from her spot in the corner and smirked. "Give it to me of course." :P

 

Out of rp: yeah I think I like Orlok's idea about the quick players flipping a coin for it. Even the eliminators will be wary of going for the gun because they already have a kill and it's more risky for them to lose players for something they don't necessarily need. The village outnumbers the elims and if several people went for the gun they'd only send one elim if any. So they'd be outnumbered and chances are that the elims wouldn't get the gun and would end up losing a player. I'm pretty sure if I was an elim, I wouldn't even risk it. I might try and make a deal with the thief so they would steal it for me. Just sayin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

I am going to tentatively place a vote on Orlok Tsubodai for this. Kynedath, as he already stated, has always taken this stance. Sure, it isn't optimal play, but it is consistent play for him, and unless he is the only Eliminator in the game, we'll get plenty of other information without his voting.

I agree with Joe, from what I've seen Kynedath as always done this. I have only played two games and watched a few others, but from what I have seen I have no reason to see that this is suspicious. Orlok Tsubodai

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steeldancer said:

I commented on that because it was the only thing I had any thoughts on. I don't really know what to do with the gun, besides the fact that I don't want it. I don't really want to RP, and I don't really have any other brilliant thoughts. Besides maybe encouraging people to talk in PM's but remember PM safety. Idk, I'm feeling a little more paranoid right now. I've been thinking about the meta and how useless we are at finding eliminators through analysis... I think we've been going about it wrong, and I have some ideas I want to try, but none of them are at all useful until we've lynched someone and we've had discussion. 

A couple of points, here. I'll address first the second part I've emphasised, and would assert that this isn't always the case. Look at LG36, in which Joe and Cloud were caught by analysis. LG37, I was caught by analysis. QF27, the village came very close to catching two eliminators. I haven't played as much recently, but think that giving up analysis will simply let eliminators hide in the shadows. People are caught with it, and encouraging discussion leads to it.

The second thing I'd call out is the first part I've emphasised. This chimes with the first post you made, giving standard advice and not really adding to discourse. 

@Steeldancer, what are your thoughts on player interactions? That's information far more useful to us than repeating the common wisdom about PM safety and stating that D1 lynches must occur.

2 hours ago, Kynedath said:

Alright, here we go again! This is the exact same stance I've taken on day 1 lynches as every other time I've played SE. Here is my reasoning.

I do not like being a part of day 1 lynches because I have been lynched day 1 and I know what it feels like to be kicked out of a game that you're really excited about for absolutely no reason. I hate that feeling and I don't want to be a contributor to that. It's unfair and honestly I think that it's pretty mean.

That being said, having had this argument MANY times before, I recognize that it is our main way of getting information. Lynching is how we win, I understand that. But I'd rather not do so f it makes someone feel terrible like day 1 lynching does. Therefore, I don't vote on day 1 as a general policy because of the way that it has no logic or reasoning behind it other than pure luck.

The reason I encourage it without partaking is because I know it is necessary. It's almost like voting in an election IRL. If we all stopped, the election would be decided by like fifteen people, so instead of trying to convince others not to vote as well, I decide to let them us their own judgement on whether or not they vote, and whom they vote for. We're all capable of making those types of decisions, so rather than try to fight the gathering of information, I watch from the sidelines and don't partake in what I feel is unfair. It's how I've always done it, feel free to go back and check.

@Kynedath, whilst it is interesting to learn that this is a regular view of yours, I maintain my wholehearted disagreement with it. Acknowledging the possibility of a D1 lynch is something we must all do when we sign up for a game. I contend that little pleasure can really be gained from a game that you refuse to play. Being in an SE game in an of itself ought to provide little fun. Engaging in discussion, thought, and strategizing is what provides the pleasure, not merely having a role. If we don't lynch on D1, we minimise pleasure over the course of the game. We provide less information for D2, and so have a far less interesting D2 lynch discussion. If you're interesting in ensuring people enjoy SE games, it would make sense for you to seek to maximise D1 discussion, which is most easily done by engaging in the lynch discussion. If you put enough energy into it, it won't matter so much whether you're lynched at the end of the day. Having to defend yourself is hugely exciting, and you'll likely get far more out of the game than sitting on the sidelines letting other people discuss. Do you not find yourself more engaged when you have to respond to votes?

 

1 hour ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

I am going to tentatively place a vote on Orlok Tsubodai for this. Kynedath, as he already stated, has always taken this stance. Sure, it isn't optimal play, but it is consistent play for him, and unless he is the only Eliminator in the game, we'll get plenty of other information without his voting.

@A Joe in the Bush, as stated above, I hadn't noted that Kynedath was prone to this, but stand by my vote for now. I don't think it productive for maximising discussion, or for maximising fun. Kynedath has, despite responding, not actually provided any thought on other players, which he's capable of doing without voting, which doesn't help the view that this is a convenient way to avoid suspicion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Orlok Tsubodai said:

 

@A Joe in the Bush, as stated above, I hadn't noted that Kynedath was prone to this, but stand by my vote for now. I don't think it productive for maximising discussion, or for maximising fun. Kynedath has, despite responding, not actually provided any thought on other players, which he's capable of doing without voting, which doesn't help the view that this is a convenient way to avoid suspicion.

Alright, fair enough Orlock Tsubodai.  Not sure who else to vote on right now. Maybe on Monster Metroid for not sharing pictures of the new Pupper.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cacooo was no stranger to disregard. As a fourth, unwanted child who hadn't even been deemed worthy of a real name, Cacooo was used to being treated as disposable. Upon reaching adulthood and escaping off to the front lines in the war against the chalklings, Cacooo had thought that that attitude would be left behind. Sadly, it seemed that such indifference existed even here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems unlikely that the elims would bother to go for the gun. If anything, they'll send a sneaky player to steal the gun. Meanwhile, sending in half the quick soldiers to go for the gun, as Orlok suggests, merely makes it incredibly likely that at least one quick soldier will die without anybody getting the gun. 

  • Gun: It's a gun, what do you expect? Use it to kill a player. If more than one person tries to grab the gun, all but one of them will die, and no one gets the gun, since it gets fired during the struggle.

@Sart, if multiple sneaky players attempt to steal the gun, would all but one of them die, with the gun being lost?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BrightnessRadiant said:

Out of rp: yeah I think I like Orlok's idea about the quick players flipping a coin for it. Even the eliminators will be wary of going for the gun because they already have a kill and it's more risky for them to lose players for something they don't necessarily need. The village outnumbers the elims and if several people went for the gun they'd only send one elim if any. So they'd be outnumbered and chances are that the elims wouldn't get the gun and would end up losing a player. I'm pretty sure if I was an elim, I wouldn't even risk it. I might try and make a deal with the thief so they would steal it for me. Just sayin.

@BrightnessRadiant, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on my second proposal - that being lynching whoever takes the gun. Through this, we can minimise village deaths through multiple players going for it, and prevent the eliminators from going for the gun unless they've already won.

Edit: I really ought to read the rules better. Sneaky players undermine the value of this strategy. As such, I think a 50/50 chance, or perhaps 25/75, of each quick player going for the gun is the optimum strategy for the village. We want to know who has the gun, in order to provide a disincentive for its use. With 16 starting players, and probably 12 starting villagers, I think the greater information we derive through maintaining discussion is worth far more than a risky shot at a player, given our incredibly fine margin for error. I think that if 25% of quick players go, we're unlikely to get more than one going. For the eliminators to choose to send a player too delivers a 50% chance of death, which I think is high enough to outweigh the advantages they may derive from being able to end the game a cycle earlier.

Edited by Orlok Tsubodai
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

Kynedath, whilst it is interesting to learn that this is a regular view of yours, I maintain my wholehearted disagreement with it. Acknowledging the possibility of a D1 lynch is something we must all do when we sign up for a game. I contend that little pleasure can really be gained from a game that you refuse to play. Being in an SE game in an of itself ought to provide little fun. Engaging in discussion, thought, and strategizing is what provides the pleasure, not merely having a role. If we don't lynch on D1, we minimise pleasure over the course of the game. We provide less information for D2, and so have a far less interesting D2 lynch discussion. If you're interesting in ensuring people enjoy SE games, it would make sense for you to seek to maximise D1 discussion, which is most easily done by engaging in the lynch discussion. If you put enough energy into it, it won't matter so much whether you're lynched at the end of the day. Having to defend yourself is hugely exciting, and you'll likely get far more out of the game than sitting on the sidelines letting other people discuss. Do you not find yourself more engaged when you have to respond to votes?

 

@A Joe in the Bush, as stated above, I hadn't noted that Kynedath was prone to this, but stand by my vote for now. I don't think it productive for maximising discussion, or for maximising fun. Kynedath has, despite responding, not actually provided any thought on other players, which he's capable of doing without voting, which doesn't help the view that this is a convenient way to avoid suspicion.

While I do agree that interaction and discussion are integral parts of SE and do provide a wealth of entertainment, I disagree that my stance detracts from the overall experience and long-term pleasure of the game. I would contend that there is not in fact less information D2. Every post and every action tells us something, the post doesn't have to be a vote or something about a vote. For example, your post and mine both have information on our state of mind, style of 'interrogation', some insight into our motives, even our style of writing which can sometimes come into play. And I would also argue that throughout my, albeit limited, SE career, my stance has brought discussion onto the table without fail. Every time I try to stay out of it, someone puts a vote on me or disagrees with me. By taking this stance, I too am encouraging discussion, just by a different method.

And you're right, having to defend yourself is exciting. But I find it far more exciting and engaging when the accuser has valid and logical points to defend against. I am having the time of my life defending against your arguments and debating with you, however you have far more experience with this than I do and you are able to create those arguments more quickly than I can. I find it difficult to find valid arguments as to why someone is acting suspiciously with as small an information pool as there is on day 1. As such, I can't create that engaging discussion unless I flat out accuse someone on absolutely no grounds whatsoever. Baseless accusations are simply tiring and frustrating to deal with.

Trust me, I plan on voting, like I said, it's how we win the game. But I don't feel I have enough information to properly accuse someone of being guilty on the first cycle. I never have. If you want my commentary on everyone else in the game, then stop giving me such great arguments to defend from and giving me a reason to write these storming long paragraphs in my defense.

0

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.