Jump to content

Quick Fix 45: To Set an Example


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Frozen Mint said:

Hm. There's a contradiction here. Your first post heavily implies that your "vote on someone with no votes" plan applies to all of C1. Without much else to go on yet, I'll vote Gears. We'll see how the cycle plays out.

I believe I have misrepresented my opinions with an unfortunate assumption that my leaps of logic were comprehensible. The following is my attempt to rectify that. 1. My plan was founded on the premise that everyone would be willing to oblige. As this is not the case, the plan is fundamentally flawed. However, I will be leaving my vote where it is as I am a forgetful person and I do not wish to burn through the grace cycles of no-voting without extenuating circumstances. 2. My plan was never intended to apply to all of C1. It was intended as a placeholder until a lynch target was found. 3. The strictly lynching an inactive was in the event of a cycle without a lynch target. 

EDIT: As The_Truthwatcher has replied, I will vote on someone who has not replied. TJ Shade, you have been selected by the algorithm. @TJ Shade

Edited by Gears
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gears said:

Voting is mandatory, so I am going to roll a random number and vote The_Truthwatcher. All active players should vote on someone with no votes on them as on C1 we don't have suspicions. If a player is inactive, they will eventually be obliterated by the no-vote filter, so no need to worry about them. I would not be opposed to strictly lynching those who do not vote as they would die soon anyway in lieu of leaving the lynch to random chance. Do not forget to vote.

Hmm. An interesting idea, though not necessarily one I agree with. As Xino says below, people are going to start forming weak suspicions and suspecting others, leading to consolidation of votes into the usual D1 lynch trains, and the degree of compliance required for this plan makes it likely infeasible to begin with. (And, now you’ve ninja’d me saying the exact same thing. Perfect. :P)

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

I haven't played with a vote requirement filter since my very first game, which was quite similar to this one (although there were roles that could force people not to vote, making it much more risky to abstain). I agree with Gears that we don't need to worry about full inactives, although low activity could still be a problem.

Ah, yes, MR29. :P Judging by that game, low activity is a problem, though hopefully the faster pace of the QF will both encourage participation and hasten the demise of those who fail to contribute.

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

If every player were to get on and place a vote on someone with no votes, then every player would wind up with a vote on them, meaning that a random player will die. While this wouldn't necessarily be disastrous for the village, it wouldn't really provide much information. Lynch discussion might be speculative and suspicions low on the first turn, but having lynch contention will provide clues for analysis on later turns.

TL:DR; Don't be afraid to put your vote on someone who already has a vote on them.

I'll stick a vote on Lahilt for now. @Lahilt

This is good sense from Xino, and mirrors my thoughts on the issue. With no role interactions, in-thread discussion, specifically lynch discussion, is quite literally our only means of finding or working against the Eliminators, and the more people we force to meaningfully contribute, the more information we’ll have to work with. While voting patterns tend to be the most useful to analyse, we shouldn’t be lax about pressuring and testing people just because the filter is in place—it’s quite possible for elims to skate by on minimally reasoned votes on third parties, and to mostly stay out of the public eye, if we aren’t vigilant; as such, pressing and responding to people other than those you’re voting on is important, especially to avoid tunnels. (If you’re looking up my history in SE right now, do as I say, not as I do :P)

1 hour ago, Straw said:

Personally, I'm not going to place any votes until I find someone I want to vote on. Random votes are useless since they show no intent to kill. I'd rather keep my votes for legitimate circumstances. Just something to keep in mind.

Hmm, Gears, you said that the lynch would be "random chance", if I understand correctly. What makes you think that?

Also, you said that "on C1 we don't have suspicions". Why do you think that? We can certainly get suspicions from posts, not just flips.

Going to disagree here, Straw. Random voting is better than no voting at all, especially since Eliminator voting can never be truly random, because their decision is always informed by whether or not they’re voting on a teammate, and how they think it’ll make them look if or when the person flips. While I understand the desire to withhold your vote until you have more information to go off, it’s also not productive to cast stones at those trying to generate interaction with poke votes, provided that’s their actual intent with it. Lynches need to get started somehow, and pokes and responses to them are generally how it happens; obviously more mature discussion can and should happen later, but for the beginning of D1 (which this is), they’re invaluable for getting the ball rolling. 

1 hour ago, Frozen Mint said:

 

Hm. There's a contradiction here. Your first post heavily implies that your "vote on someone with no votes" plan applies to all of C1. Without much else to go on yet, I'll vote Gears. We'll see how the cycle plays out.

 

We won't get any information with this strategy. SE games only work with accusations, betrayal, and backstabbing. :P We have to lynch based on suspicion if we want meaningful lynch discussions.

In fact, because of the inactivity filter, we can safely assume that if someone's not voting, it's not an elim trying to get out of killing a teammate, and is indeed someone who's gotten caught up with life. I'm firmly against lynching people we see being inactive.

I think your condemnation of Gears is perhaps a bit hasty, Mint—he’s not contradicting himself, merely clarifying (he wants the initial votes spread out across a wide range of people to try to make Eliminators cast distinct votes). While I don’t necessarily agree with his idea, he is being consistent. Though I agree with your assertion that we should be letting inactivity take care of itself; unless we’re killing a lurker who’s intentionally not contributing during a meaningful cycle, there’s no reason to use lynch discussion on people who aren’t contributing to the game, especially since inactives are both good red herrings for Team Evil, and discussion on them can easily turn NAI or meta, and doesn’t always advance the village’s analysis once the person is dead. 

1 hour ago, xinoehp512 said:

To be clear, I'm fine with my target being killed. I'm trying to take a page out of Araris's book this game and make my votes more 'stabby'. We'll see how it goes. :P 

In addition, elims are much less likely to go inactive, since they have a higher incentive to stay alive. If that wasn't enough, they also have a doc in which their teammates can remind them to post a vote if they forget.

Agreed on both counts, though the latter is perhaps overstated a bit; generally, if an eliminator becomes disengaged enough from the game to be considered inactive, they likely aren’t checking their doc much either. 

23 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Just popping in to say hello. I won't be much more active until tomorrow morning (though I'll probably take the time to respond to things after I'm done dealing with rollover tonight if people tag or quote me). Just want to say that I think placing a vote on someone who hasn't posted yet is a pretty good tactic to get them to post. Gives them an incentive to get online. Once they do post, then you can evaluate whether or not you'll leave your vote on them or not. For now, I'm going to go ahead and put a vote on Eternum. @Eternum You were the first name I saw when I scrolled back up and glanced at the player list. Explain why you should not be killed. :P 

Liking Striker’s ideas here, especially the ones on poke-voting and why it’s useful, and this is why I’ll defend early D1 lynch discussion no matter how asinine it may seem. Incentivising contribution and using votes to do so is a great way to draw people in, provided we do eventually move past the random voting. 

3 minutes ago, Straw said:

Am I the only one who really dislikes the current voting trend? There are five votes at the moment, and only one of them has an actual reason behind it.

I tend to notice that votes get more reasoning as turns and cycles progress. We’re only two hours into D1, so while this level of engagement would be frustrating on D4, say, it’s useful now just to get things rolling, and I’m not sure why you’re objecting to it so strongly, considering that the votes are generating or attempting to generate discussion, and without them we’d just have a bunch of vague check-in posts which are just as impervious to analysis as random votes. I’d also note that random votes do technically have reasoning behind them, though it’s simply reasoning you object to strongly. :P Again, while I’m not condemning you for waiting to vote until you feel you have more information, I’m curious as to what information you hope to collect other than tone reads off a village which isn’t voting at all. 

Well, I was not expecting my first post to be a long multiquote, but here we are. :P Al Funcoot will have to wait for tomorrow, I think, as I’ve got an essay to edit for a friend tonight, but if anyone is interested in partnering up for RP, please PM me and we can set something up. :) And wow, these threads move fast compared to when I was last playing. I like it a lot, but it’s disconcerting when you’re writing a long analysis post and the number of posts doubles as you’re doing so :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Going to disagree here, Straw. Random voting is better than no voting at all, especially since Eliminator voting can never be truly random, because their decision is always informed by whether or not they’re voting on a teammate, and how they think it’ll make them look if or when the person flips. While I understand the desire to withhold your vote until you have more information to go off, it’s also not productive to cast stones at those trying to generate interaction with poke votes, provided that’s their actual intent with it. Lynches need to get started somehow, and pokes and responses to them are generally how it happens; obviously more mature discussion can and should happen later, but for the beginning of D1 (which this is), they’re invaluable for getting the ball rolling. 

Liking Striker’s ideas here, especially the ones on poke-voting and why it’s useful, and this is why I’ll defend early D1 lynch discussion no matter how asinine it may seem. Incentivising contribution and using votes to do so is a great way to draw people in, provided we do eventually move past the random voting. 

I tend to notice that votes get more reasoning as turns and cycles progress. We’re only two hours into D1, so while this level of engagement would be frustrating on D4, say, it’s useful now just to get things rolling, and I’m not sure why you’re objecting to it so strongly, considering that the votes are generating or attempting to generate discussion, and without them we’d just have a bunch of vague check-in posts which are just as impervious to analysis as random votes. I’d also note that random votes do technically have reasoning behind them, though it’s simply reasoning you object to strongly. :P Again, while I’m not condemning you for waiting to vote until you feel you have more information, I’m curious as to what information you hope to collect other than tone reads off a village which isn’t voting at all. 

So, first of all, you claim that I’m attacking people who are randomly voting. What makes you say that? I don’t like the strategy, but I don’t feel like it means they’re particularly likely to be an eliminator.

You also claim several times that poke votes are valuable for starting D1 discussion. What makes you say that? In my opinion, poke votes don’t generate any individual discussion, since they’re all the same and have no particular basis. I also don’t think they particularly prompt the poked player to post, especially when you have a lot of them flying around. People aren’t going to get eliminated off of single votes, and they don’t put the poked player under any particular focus. I feel like they’re going to check in when they feel like it, and poke votes aren’t going to affect that very much. It doesn’t incentivize contribution in the slightest, and just makes you feel good for “promoting activity”.

I also disagree that you can get information from who eliminators randomly vote on. Eliminators have no reason to care about how a random vote will look on a flip, since it represents no thought and requires no evidence. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s not putting anyone under fire.

You say that if people weren’t randomly voting, they’d just be making useless check in posts, but that’s not really true. None of the posts so far has been particularly based around their random vote, and I’m curious what you think it adds to their posts?

I find your point about this being acceptable due it being D1 to be odd. There’s no particular reason why votes now shouldn’t be based off of thread things. You also seem to be stating the obvious when you say that vote reasoning increases over time.

As to what information I’m trying to gather, I’m mainly just reading how people enter the thread and what they say. I’m also trying to get some discussion going around random voting in order to actually create some analyzable interactions.

I’d like to see a response from you on this.  Overall, you seem to think that random votes generate individual discussion, which they really don’t. Anyone else want to chime in with their thoughts as well?

Edited by Straw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2020 at 0:22 PM, Matrim's Dice said:

I pinged Silber, so when he replies I'll most likely 100% change it. Voted early simply because it's mandatory

I REPLIED!

Hello matrim, did you vote me because i kept roleblocking you last game?:P

On 6/21/2020 at 0:25 PM, Fifth Scholar said:

Going to disagree here, Straw. Random voting is better than no voting at all, especially since Eliminator voting can never be truly random, because their decision is always informed by whether or not they’re voting on a teammate, and how they think it’ll make them look if or when the person flips. While I understand the desire to withhold your vote until you have more information to go off, it’s also not productive to cast stones at those trying to generate interaction with poke votes, provided that’s their actual intent with it. Lynches need to get started somehow, and pokes and responses to them are generally how it happens; obviously more mature discussion can and should happen later, but for the beginning of D1 (which this is), they’re invaluable for getting the ball rolling. 

I agree with this, eventually, most votes(the most important) will eventually end up having meaning.

although i already have a weak suspicion

On 6/21/2020 at 0:25 PM, Fifth Scholar said:

This is good sense from Xino,

On 6/21/2020 at 0:25 PM, Fifth Scholar said:

Agreed on both counts, though the latter is perhaps overstated a bit; generally, if an eliminator becomes disengaged enough from the game to be considered inactive, they likely aren’t checking their doc much either. 

Am I seeing a xino-scholar team? maybe.

you agreed with them twice. this is not really AI, but it is all i have.

I disagree with the second part, last game we got most of out team almost inactive, coda almost went asleep(didn't post for a whole cycle) while at the same time engaging in doc discussion and actions.

for now: Fifth Scholar

might change later

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord_Silberfarben said:

Hello matrim, did you vote me because i kept roleblocking you last game?:P

Good to see you Silber. I actually had never nailed down who that was, so that's good to know...

Uh, replacement vote? Not required, but I'll need one eventually. I'm trying really hard to find something vote-worthy but I've discovered that I'm actually not that great at solid analysis- a pity, in a vanilla game- but we'll see what I can do. :P

1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I think your condemnation of Gears is perhaps a bit hasty, Mint—he’s not contradicting himself, merely clarifying (he wants the initial votes spread out across a wide range of people to try to make Eliminators cast distinct votes). While I don’t necessarily agree with his idea, he is being consistent. Though I agree with your assertion that we should be letting inactivity take care of itself; unless we’re killing a lurker who’s intentionally not contributing during a meaningful cycle, there’s no reason to use lynch discussion on people who aren’t contributing to the game, especially since inactives are both good red herrings for Team Evil, and discussion on them can easily turn NAI or meta, and doesn’t always advance the village’s analysis once the person is dead.

So, I disagree with the initial statement, I don't think that vote was hasty given the prior posts. I do agree with the larger second portion of this though.

1 hour ago, Straw said:

Am I the only one who really dislikes the current voting trend? There are five votes at the moment, and only one of them has an actual reason behind it.

 

1 hour ago, Shard of Reading said:

Yes. After dieing/playing in the most resent LG, and knowing how much posts can be read into, I will refrain from voting until I can be more certain.

 

1 hour ago, Mist said:

I don't like it either. 

In all my games so far- which granted, this is my third- the game has started with many poke votes of which I see no difference from the start of this game. No one reacted to that much at all I the MR and LG. I dunno what the meta is about that but it seemed worth mentioning.

All the stuff with Gears to me just seems like new-player confusion, with a 'first game plan' that maybe wasn't agreed on and then backpedaling to defend themselves, something of which I have done and have been told a single lynch vote isn't really anything to worry about.

So, uh, no vote yet. :P. I'll probably solidify my actual suspicions in the morning when there are more posts and the discussion moves off the worth of poke votes. :P 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poke vote talk is probably because I came in and wanted to start a discussion on something. :P

Agreed on Gears. I also give them mild village cred for being the first poster as a new player. I feel like a new elim might wait around a bit more, watch the thread, talk in the doc, and then post.

Any opinion on what the discussion should move onto? I’m curious about what you think is important to talk about ATM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda agree with Straw here. I feel like nothing of great importance will be revealed if the elims happened to get poked. It's easy for them to distance themselves from a fellow teammate very early in the game and there's no real danger in them voting for a team mate. 

Having said that, it does provide a basis for some reasoning to begin, so I do not mind others doing it. It's just that I won't be involved in it. 

Coming to the topic of random stabbing, well that's just down to probability. As Fifth said, random vote is better than no vote, but I'd still like a reasoned vote over a random vote. I know it's difficult in D1, but I'd still like to try my best. Until then, I'd like to hold on to my vote.

Edited by TJ Shade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the final vote counts in terms of considering who is/isn't likely to be on a team together, so in the absence of reasoning a vote is only useful if it sticks. Or if it prompts a bandwagon; one vote means nothing but several votes on the same person should prompt a response. On that note, Fifth

4 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Random voting is better than no voting at all, especially since Eliminator voting can never be truly random, because their decision is always informed by whether or not they’re voting on a teammate, and how they think it’ll make them look if or when the person flips.

Would you say that early D1 elim votes can be truly random, since they can easily be reassigned later when actual 'evidence' pops up? I don't think I would make any alignment shift judgements on Lahilt, Silber, Eternum, or TJ should any of their respective voters be evil, provided those votes either shift or become irrelevant throughout the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

Just popping in to say hello. I won't be much more active until tomorrow morning (though I'll probably take the time to respond to things after I'm done dealing with rollover tonight if people tag or quote me). Just want to say that I think placing a vote on someone who hasn't posted yet is a pretty good tactic to get them to post. Gives them an incentive to get online. Once they do post, then you can evaluate whether or not you'll leave your vote on them or not. For now, I'm going to go ahead and put a vote on Eternum. @Eternum You were the first name I saw when I scrolled back up and glanced at the player list. Explain why you should not be killed. :P 

I shouldn't be killed cause I'm a skaa boy and want to play! :P

Either way, hello all! I'm currently on the road, but I'll come back and make a more coherent post in a couple of hours. I'm gonna place a vote on Vapor for now.

EDIT: Okay, apparently I have a little time right now! So far, I like the discussion *about* poke votes more than what the poke votes themselves have caused. Personally, I think they're a worthwhile endeavor: the pressure of even a single vote makes people more likely to make mistakes if they're trying to hide.

Devotary makes a good point, though (forgive the weird formatting, I'm on mobile):

Quote

Would you say that early D1 elim votes can be truly random, since they can easily be reassigned later when actual 'evidence' pops up? I don't think I would make any alignment shift judgements on Lahilt, Silber, Eternum, or TJ should any of their respective voters be evil, provided those votes either shift or become irrelevant throughout the day.

"Poke voting" another elim would be a very, very easy distancing tactic.

Edited by Eternum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I read through the thread again, and at the moment, I don't see anything off. Xino's changed tactic is the only thing that stands out. It's not suspicious, but it's different. So I'd be willing to drop a vote on Xinoehp for now. 

@Orlok Tsubodai, is it 3 inactive cycles for the whole game or 3 successive cycles of inactivity? Is the player considered inactive if they vote, then retract their vote without voting for a replacement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TJ Shade said:

@Orlok Tsubodai, is it 3 inactive cycles for the whole game or 3 successive cycles of inactivity? Is the player considered inactive if they vote, then retract their vote without voting for a replacement?

Three occasions of not having an active and valid vote at the end of the cycle will result in your death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

Three occasions of not having an active and valid vote at the end of the cycle will result in your death.

Alright thanks. 

Vote Count:
Fifth Scholar (2) - Lord Silberfarben, Devotary of Spontaneity
Lahilt (1) - Xinoeph
Gears (1) - Frozen Mint
Eternum (1) - StrikerEZ
TJ (1) - Gears
Straw (1) - Fifth Scholar
Vapor (1) - Eternum
Xinoehp (1) - TJ

@Ashbringer, @Vapor, @MysticLotus, @The Young Pyromancer, @Experience, @Ventyl, @Lahilt@Sparkrunner - Might wanna chip in guys, time's running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2020 at 10:49 PM, The_Truthwatcher said:

I'll vote for Lord Silberfarben on random. Sorry.

no problem.

i would prefer if your vote had some reasoning behind it, seeing there are a few very slightly AI posts. but still no worries.

EDIT:

huh, just found you said this(cant quote it)

Quote

Just chiming in to say hi. Also, I don't think random voting is going to be useful.

this is probably why you were saying sorry.

 

Edited by Lord_Silberfarben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so let's look at some reads for the moment!

Gears (mild village)

Mild village for being the first person to post as a new player, I feel like an eliminator would try to be more cautious. I don't find his RNG votes or plan to be particularly telling, feels like confused new player.

The_Truthwatcher (null)

They claimed that random voting wasn't useful, but then just popped in with a random vote on Silber. Also doesn't seem to understand random votes entirely, since Silber has posted and given thoughts. @The_Truthwatcher what caused your change of opinion on random votes?

Matrim's Dice (very mild village)

Pointing out that Gears was a new player was good. They said that they would figure out reads in the morning, which I'll be curious to see.

TJ Shade (very mild village)

They said they wanted reasoned votes, which I like. Claims Xino changed tactics. @TJ Shade what exactly did Xino change?

Eternum (null)

I agreed with their comments on poke votes being easy distancing if analyzed and their point that as of now poke vote discussion was more useful than the votes themselves.

Frozen Mint (mild elim)

They jumped on Gears right away, which I find suspicious since Gears is new, but IDK if they know that.

Devotary of Spontaneity (null)

They voted on Fifth to prompt a response, which is better than a random vote. They commented on votes only being useful if they stick or start a train, which I agree with.

Fifth Scholar (mild/moderate elim)

They said that they wanted everyone to contribute meaningfully, which I agree with. They disagreed with Mint on Gears, which was good. I was rereading Fifth's post and I don't think he actually ever gave much reason for a vote on me. Fifth disagreed with me, but disagreement is hardly grounds for an elim read on someone. Fifth also said that he wasn't condemning me, which I found odd considering the fact that he was voting on me. I also noticed that they said that inactive discussion and lynches weren't helpful, which seems to contradict their agreement with random voting on inactives?

Lord_Silberfarben (mild elim)

They're okay with Truthwatcher's vote on them, but prompted for reasoning, which I like. They voted on Fifth for agreeing with Xino, and immediately tinfoiled a Fifth/Xino elim team. @Lord_Silberfarben what makes you find agreement with another player to be suspicious?

Xinoehp512 (null)

They encouraged actual lynch discussion, and the forming of trains, which I like. They said they were fine with killing Lahilt, despite them having no posts, which I find odd but not that suspicious. 

Overall, I think I'll be good with adding some pressure to Fifth Scholar. Hopefully, this will prompt a bit more discussion on him.

I'd appreciate if other people could provide reads, even if they just give reads on a few people/posts they find notable. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning for any of these reads, or has a very different read on someone, I'd appreciate if they could say why so we can discuss it.

Edited by Straw
changed period to question mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2020 at 11:27 PM, Straw said:

They voted on Fifth for agreeing with Xino, and immediately tinfoiled a Fifth/Xino elim team. @Lord_Silberfarben what makes you find agreement with another player to be suspicious?

hmm...

tinfoil really describes how i play mafia.

also paranoia.

i think there were some traumas in my earlier games, and i cant trust anyone.

 

like your vote on fifth scholar...

i understand it is only to provoke discussion...:ph34r:

but my tinfoil reaction is that you are chiming in into an already running vote, and adding lots of your own reasoning, which is actually mostly not really weighty.

I understand this is day one, and there is not much to go on, like my own vote on fifth scholar, not that much reasoning, just a gut read on some of their comments.

 

Edited by Lord_Silberfarben
Meh, tinfoil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following are my reads on everyone who has posted. However, as a subject of controversy, I find myself unable to maintain a truly impartial position in my analysis. Keep in mind that some of my reads are because people have defended or suspected me. 

xinoehp512 - None. Pointed out flaws in my plan, but that's NAI.

Straw - Mild village. Has provoked discussion and analysis. Dislikes the random voting. (This read may be affected by Straw's village read of me. Do not trust it.)

Frozen Mint - Mild elim. Jumped on me for my terrible plan, which admittedly is justified because of how ridiculous the premise was. The vote on me could be because of mandatory voting. (This read may be affected by Mint's vote on me. Do not trust it.)

Matrim's Dice - None. Votes, retracts it, says that they will do analysis in the morning, notes my new player status. 

Striker - None. Promotes poke-voting. 

Shard of Reading - None. Dislikes the random voting. Refrains from voting. 

Mist - None. Dislikes the random voting. 

The_Truthwatcher - None. Dislikes the random voting. Votes random anyways. (This contradiction confuses me. Someone more experienced than me pick this apart).

Fifth Scholar - Very slight elim. Defended me. Voted Straw, which I disagree with. (This read may be affected by Fifth's defense of me. Do not trust it.)

Lord_Silberfarben - Very slight elim. Tinfoils a theory about Fifth and xino that I disagree with, though I think an elim would be a little more careful given that they have access to a jury of their peers to review their actions. Could be a paranoid villager or an elim acting without peer review.

TJ Shade - None. Does not mind poke-voting, just doesn't want to be involved. Places a vote on xino for minimal reasoning, probably because of mandatory voting. 

Devotary of Spontaneity - None. Notes that people can move their votes, and as such become irrelevant. 

Eternum - None. Supports poke-voting. Notes that elims poke-voting elims is an easy distance tactic.

MysticLotus - None. Places a random vote. @MysticLotus, your vote needs to be put in red. On the computer, there is a drop-down menu on the right of the format bar. On mobile, you type [*color=red]vote[/color] without the asterisk.

Vapor - None. Places a vote on Fifth. @Vapor, you also need to put your vote in red.

I will retract my vote from TJ Shade and hold on to it for the moment. 

Edited by Gears
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Straw said:

The_Truthwatcher (null)

They claimed that random voting wasn't useful, but then just popped in with a random vote on Silber. Also doesn't seem to understand random votes entirely, since Silber has posted and given thoughts. @The_Truthwatcher what caused your change of opinion on random votes?

I just voted because there was a chance that I would not be able to come online later. In fact, I most certainly won't be online anymore for this round.

Edit: I do dislike random voting, but I don't want to have an inactive cycle this early in the game.

Edited by The_Truthwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Straw said:

They said that they would figure out reads in the morning, which I'll be curious to see.

I said I'll try. :P Doesn't mean they'll be good.

So the way I see this currently shaping up is the conflict over random votes, with two main sides to this (I believe the names are aligned correctly):

For-Random: Fifth, Gears, and arguably Striker, Truthwatcher, and Eternum (?)

Anti-Random: Straw, Devotary, Mist, Reading

As for me, I don't really know. My initial vote on Silber was a randomly decided poke to prompt discussion as I believed that was the standard for how SE games began, so this line of thread discussion is pretty interesting. 

For me, the only posts really worth noting are Fifth's and the consecutive 3 blunt posts from Straw, Reading, and Mist all agreeing firmly against random voting.

I find it interesting Straw is trying to promote more discussion from Fifth- his post was the most discussion-heavy so far this cycle with multiple multi-quotes and things like that. Generally I agree with what he's saying, especially this bit:

12 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

While I understand the desire to withhold your vote until you have more information to go off, it’s also not productive to cast stones at those trying to generate interaction with poke votes, provided that’s their actual intent with it.

But his vote on Straw does seem quick, though that's pretty much how most of the votes are flying right now. 

I quoted the 3 posts yesterday so I won't here, but I'll say my thoughts again. Never, in any of the other games I've played- again, only two others- has there been any slight discussion at all over random voting, and it wasn't any less prevalent then we're seeing right now. And for some reason there are plenty of people firmly against it, seemingly out of the blue. I don't really think this is AI, but I just thought it was strange. :/ (What is the meta on that, BTW?)

I'd say my main village reads are Gears and Straw, and my main elim reads- faint they are- are Truthwatcher, for doing exactly what people have said a new elim might do, (might just be new player though) and, uh, I dunno if this is actually a solid read but Mint's post going after Gears seems weird to me.

Truthwatcher for now. 

Edit: Wow, ninja'd by... 5 posts? Okay, changes:

Truthwatcher talked, defending as a new player without any idea of how to get reads. I pity that as that basically was/is me... so, Mint. For now. 

Edited by Matrim's Dice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gears said:

The following are my reads on everyone who has posted. However, as a subject of controversy, I find myself unable to maintain a truly impartial position in my analysis. Keep in mind that some of my reads are because people have defended or suspected me. 

xinoehp512 - None. Pointed out flaws in my plan, but that's NAI.

Straw - Mild village. Has provoked discussion and analysis. Dislikes the random voting. (This read may be affected by Straw's village read of me. Do not trust it.)

Frozen Mint - Mild elim. Jumped on me for my terrible plan, which admittedly is justified because of how ridiculous the premise was. The vote on me could be because of mandatory voting. (This read may be affected by Mint's vote on me. Do not trust it.)

Matrim's Dice - None. Votes, retracts it, says that they will do analysis in the morning, notes my new player status. 

Striker - None. Promotes poke-voting. 

Shard of Reading - None. Dislikes the random voting. Refrains from voting. 

Mist - None. Dislikes the random voting. 

The_Truthwatcher - None. Dislikes the random voting. Votes random anyways. (This contradiction confuses me. Someone more experienced than me pick this apart).

Fifth Scholar - Very slight elim. Defended me. Voted Straw, which I disagree with. (This read may be affected by Fifth's defense of me. Do not trust it.)

Lord_Silberfarben - Very slight elim. Tinfoils a theory about Fifth and xino that I disagree with, though I think an elim would be a little more careful given that they have access to a jury of their peers to review their actions. Could be a paranoid villager or an elim acting without peer review.

TJ Shade - None. Does not mind poke-voting, just doesn't want to be involved. Places a vote on xino for minimal reasoning, probably because of mandatory voting. 

Devotary of Spontaneity - None. Notes that people can move their votes, and as such become irrelevant. 

Eternum - None. Supports poke-voting. Notes that elims poke-voting elims is an easy distance tactic.

MysticLotus - None. Places a random vote. @MysticLotus, your vote needs to be put in red. On the computer, there is a drop-down menu on the right of the format bar. On mobile, you type [*color=red]<vote>[/color] without the asterisk.

Vapor - None. Places a vote on Fifth. @Vapor, you also need to put your vote in red.

I will retract my vote from TJ Shade and hold on to it for the moment. 

Oh sorry

I'm new to this too.

I am voting <Fifth Scholar>

Edited by Vapor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...