|
Post by True Ingéneurs on Sept 16, 2013 17:15:50 GMT -8
So.. who do we vote for le polygraph test?
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Sept 17, 2013 6:06:13 GMT -8
Given that its week one and we don't know what effects there might be from the polygraph, I would like to suggest that we nominate someone who hasn't participated on the boards. That way, if she/he is a diplomat and the assassin or spies kill him or her next week, we haven't lost someone valuable.
|
|
|
Post by True Ingéneurs on Sept 17, 2013 6:31:48 GMT -8
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Sept 17, 2013 7:50:02 GMT -8
Does anyone have an alternate proposal? I like testing the waters with one of the silent people who aren't adding anything. Obviously, they have a few days to come on the boards and start participating.
|
|
Farrell
Super Person
Bureau of Investigation Agent
Posts: 398
|
Post by Farrell on Sept 17, 2013 8:48:03 GMT -8
I think having someone sort of active and polygraphed might be useful. I ccertainly wouldnt want to waste a poly on someone who isnt playing. Im going to vote for someone in the middle of the pack. I also dont think we should advertise our votes too specifically in case the spies/assasin decide to target the same people.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Sept 17, 2013 9:38:09 GMT -8
Sure, we always say a crafty "evil" character might do the silent play style, but it still seems a bit crazy, and would be somewhat boring. I think we do the opposite in fact, poly one of the people who was active about the last challenge and really involved. Those are the likely spies or assassin.
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Sept 17, 2013 9:50:10 GMT -8
I suggested quiet because it would be someone that we'd be less upset about if we lose them to the villains. But I'll go along with whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Lenin on Sept 17, 2013 11:07:11 GMT -8
In previous games, whenever there's been a lynch mob the first week, everyone seems to jump on board and focus pressure on members for non participation and I think that more often than not, humans have been sacrificed. I think a lynch mob is a great way for secret members to hide their identities one more week, by just saying, "Oh, I was voting with the mob". I do like Farrell's idea because it seems to have a higher probability of catching a spy or the assassin than lynchmobbing a non-participating human.
|
|
|
Post by Stinky Pete on Sept 17, 2013 11:31:30 GMT -8
Since Amer tends to be so talkative and analytic and persuasive at times, I think it would be advantageous for us to know where he stands for sure, so we don't have to feel like we have to second and third guess everything he says. It takes time away from my busy schedule of searching for my lost shoe
|
|
|
Post by Paula Romanetti on Sept 17, 2013 11:39:29 GMT -8
Okay, with all the chatter about the polygraph test, me thinks I have missed something..... Do we know what the "test" entails? Are there questions to answer? Is it like Truth or Dare? The GMAT? A breathalyzer test? Is it really a test at all? Was there an explanation that I missed? ?
|
|
Super Sarah
Super Person
Dancer
Mildtropolis: safe from Coronavirus but the crowd will kill you!
Posts: 381
|
Post by Super Sarah on Sept 17, 2013 12:35:55 GMT -8
Yeah first vote is always a crap-chute. I think the game rules make it easier for non-players to hang around a week or two longer and maybe become interested once their name is mentioned because if they're a diplomat they don't die by vote.
|
|
|
Post by True Ingéneurs on Sept 17, 2013 12:41:34 GMT -8
Okay, with all the chatter about the polygraph test, me thinks I have missed something..... Do we know what the "test" entails? Are there questions to answer? Is it like Truth or Dare? The GMAT? A breathalyzer test? Is it really a test at all? Was there an explanation that I missed? ? I think what happens is say True wins the vote for the polygraph test, Evan sees this after counting the votes and will post True's True Identity in the Friday Gazette. on the forums.
|
|
|
Post by Neutrino Esquire on Sept 17, 2013 13:33:01 GMT -8
Sure, we always say a crafty "evil" character might do the silent play style, but it still seems a bit crazy, and would be somewhat boring. I think we do the opposite in fact, poly one of the people who was active about the last challenge and really involved. Those are the likely spies or assassin. I don't think this week's challenge is a good indicator of how active someone is. It's just an indicator of which people here likes puzzles and have the time to complete them. It seems like the number of entries were half of the total players, several of whom were very active in the "Mildville VII Invite" thread and the "Are we there yet?" thread but then went completely silent during the immunity challenge. Okay, with all the chatter about the polygraph test, me thinks I have missed something..... Do we know what the "test" entails? Are there questions to answer? Is it like Truth or Dare? The GMAT? A breathalyzer test? Is it really a test at all? Was there an explanation that I missed? ? I think what happens is say True wins the vote for the polygraph test, Evan sees this after counting the votes and will post True's True Identity in the Friday Gazette. on the forums. Think of it like this: if you're a diplomat, being polygraphed is a basically a delayed death sentence. You may live one more week but the spies will kill you next week since you're basically useless to them now (they can't hide among the known diplomats).
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Sept 17, 2013 13:39:35 GMT -8
Since Amer tends to be so talkative and analytic and persuasive at times, I think it would be advantageous for us to know where he stands for sure, so we don't have to feel like we have to second and third guess everything he says. It takes time away from my busy schedule of searching for my lost shoe There is no way to know beforehand what will happen after the first diplomats are revealed. As someone said earlier, strategically, it would make sense for the spies to kill any diplomats who survive the polygraph test. We won't know until after week 2. If someone wants to volunteer to be a guinea pig, then I'll vote for them, just to see what happens. Otherwise, I'll vote for an inactive member. The big change made to this game is that the town vote doesn't kill an innocent victim anymore. That means, if we repeatedly vote for innocent diplomats, they will, in theory, still be capable of catching up and participating later. In previous games, we'd kill off the inactives, and they were almost always innocent, which whittled down our own numbers. So, I'll likely be voting for inactives until we have some sort of evidence against someone else. It's the safest move.
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Sept 17, 2013 13:44:23 GMT -8
When I refer to a player's "activity" I'm talking about how much they post on the boards. There are multiple threads so lots of thigs to comment on other than challenge. If someone has posted once or twice (or even less) since the beginning, they've pretty much contributed nothing to the game.
|
|
alex
Super Person
Posts: 6
|
Post by alex on Sept 17, 2013 14:11:09 GMT -8
When I refer to a player's "activity" I'm talking about how much they post on the boards. There are multiple threads so lots of thigs to comment on other than challenge. If someone has posted once or twice (or even less) since the beginning, they've pretty much contributed nothing to the game. Sorry, I am working on trying to be more active in the game. This past week I've been super busy over the last week and half and haven't had a chance to get caught up to speed.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Sept 17, 2013 19:18:20 GMT -8
The big change made to this game is that the town vote doesn't kill an innocent victim anymore. That means, if we repeatedly vote for innocent diplomats, they will, in theory, still be capable of catching up and participating later. In previous games, we'd kill off the inactives, and they were almost always innocent, which whittled down our own numbers. So, I'll likely be voting for inactives until we have some sort of evidence against someone else. It's the safest move. I don't think this is good logic. Sure, we don't kill the person chosen anymore, no more innocent blood for votes, but this is the only way we catch a spy!! We must try to choose spies on the vote, because otherwise, how the hell else are we going to catch them? Think about this purely from the spies perspective. What would they prefer us to do? Unless a substantial portion of the spies are playing the inactive role, they want us to choose inactive players! I also don't buy the "wait and see" stuff either on the polygraph. When me(or a cloned version of myself) wasn't on the good side, letting the rest muddle along indecisively was basically the best plan. Safer than fixing the contests. We have 17 diplomats 1 assassin and 5 spies. If assassin chooses randomly and spies kill 1 human per week, we have at best 8 rounds before the numbers are against us. There is a greater chance of catching a spy in the group of people actively participating in the challenges and conversation then their is in the group of inactive players. I'm a little suspicious of anyone convincing us of a strategy that has a greater chance of revealing a diplomat than spy.
|
|
Farrell
Super Person
Bureau of Investigation Agent
Posts: 398
|
Post by Farrell on Sept 17, 2013 19:28:26 GMT -8
I'm voting for someone active. If anyone wants to coordinate votes, I'm available for messages.
The original purpose of voting off inactives was if they weren't going to play then they wouldn't mind getting killed off. Now since innocent diplomats don't die, there is no penalty for voting active people so long as they are diplomats. Identifying an inactive diplomat gets us nothing. The spies prob won't even vote to kill them.
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Sept 17, 2013 23:30:54 GMT -8
The big change made to this game is that the town vote doesn't kill an innocent victim anymore. That means, if we repeatedly vote for innocent diplomats, they will, in theory, still be capable of catching up and participating later. In previous games, we'd kill off the inactives, and they were almost always innocent, which whittled down our own numbers. So, I'll likely be voting for inactives until we have some sort of evidence against someone else. It's the safest move. I don't think this is good logic. Sure, we don't kill the person chosen anymore, no more innocent blood for votes, but this is the only way we catch a spy!! We must try to choose spies on the vote, because otherwise, how the hell else are we going to catch them? Think about this purely from the spies perspective. What would they prefer us to do? Unless a substantial portion of the spies are playing the inactive role, they want us to choose inactive players! I also don't buy the "wait and see" stuff either on the polygraph. When me(or a cloned version of myself) wasn't on the good side, letting the rest muddle along indecisively was basically the best plan. Safer than fixing the contests. We have 17 diplomats 1 assassin and 5 spies. If assassin chooses randomly and spies kill 1 human per week, we have at best 8 rounds before the numbers are against us. There is a greater chance of catching a spy in the group of people actively participating in the challenges and conversation then their is in the group of inactive players. I'm a little suspicious of anyone convincing us of a strategy that has a greater chance of revealing a diplomat than spy. The average game length is around 8 weeks, so saying "we only have 8 weeks" is a bit dramatic. We always start off by killing the inactives, and then something eventually comes up that points us in a direction. It's not always the right direction, but it's better than just random attacks. It's an unwritten rule of Mildville that it's better to kill off an inactive friendly than an active enemy; at least, in the early part of the game. Even Tulley had the courtesy to wait until week 3 before killing me off when he was the werewolf. If there's anything that I'm suspicious of, it's these people who claim that the best thing to do is to vote for an active player, but they don't mean themselves. They may say they'd be willing to volunteer, but then they start listing theories about how other people must be spies. If anyone truly believes that it's in the best interest of the diplomats to target active players, then they should nominate themselves, not other players.
|
|
|
Post by Tulley Kennedy on Sept 18, 2013 7:30:24 GMT -8
I nominate myself. I want the world to know!
|
|