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 18, 2013 7:30:56 GMT -8
What's to stop the spies/assassin from killing whomever we choose to polygraph this week? If we publicly identify the person to polygraph, and the spies know its not one of their own, won't they just choose to kill that person?
|
|
|
Post by Stinky Pete on Sept 18, 2013 8:41:51 GMT -8
I think they have to wait a week though.
Lost shoe, lost shoe, where is my lost shoooooOOOOOoooooeeeee...
|
|
|
Post by Neutrino Esquire on Sept 18, 2013 9:07:56 GMT -8
New conspiracy theory:
One of the spies stole Stinky Pete's shoe. Stinky Pete hops from train to train looking for his long lost shoe. When he reaches the last train cart, the spy disconnects the last cart from the rest of the train, leaving Stinky Pete behind. At the same time, Stinky Pete finds his shoe and does the Zelda/Link pose whenever he acquires a new item. He then realizes that his train has been left behind and yells out in anger "NOOOooooOOoooOOOoo!!!"
|
|
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 18, 2013 9:16:46 GMT -8
I think they have to wait a week though. Lost shoe, lost shoe, where is my lost shoooooOOOOOoooooeeeee... I think the spies and assassin can kill off people this week.
|
|
|
Post by Son Anheuser on Sept 18, 2013 9:30:08 GMT -8
Dang so many theories abound.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Sept 18, 2013 11:11:54 GMT -8
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. This is exactly the type of thinking the spies want and is totally wrong. We are NOT killing off an inactive friendly by polygraphing them. In the old way, this could make sense, but now it doesn't because we aren't killing the player we polygraph! At this point, we are guaranteed that the spies will kill an active diplomat(very possibly myself). It's going to happen no matter what we do. We can either add to that by polygraphing a non player and gaining nothing or we can actually have a chance of getting a spy! With how much Amer is fighting this and clearly arguing against rationality, I say we test him.
|
|
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 18, 2013 11:16:09 GMT -8
I'm not eager to dangle any active player as bait. Having inactives at the end of the game is a killer... We're lucky if they remember to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Sept 18, 2013 11:20:15 GMT -8
I'm not eager to dangle any active player as bait. The only way someone is bait is if they aren't a spy. If we catch a spy, no bait, we have an awesome week. Assuming we don't get spy, then yes, that person *could* be a target the following week assuming they don't already get killed by spy/assassin this week and that they don't win the immunity challenge. Which gives me a new idea! Nominate an active player who's got spy all over them, then if they are human, we fix it so they win immunity the next week!
|
|
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 18, 2013 11:25:51 GMT -8
We don't have enough info to see spy all over anyone. The chance of actually catching a spy or the assassin this week is slim. Those who are gung ho about nominating an active player haven't nominated themselves which says that they are nervous about getting targeted this week or next. It's safer for everyone to put up fatty (muu) or brad who clearly aren't adding anything and who will likely be unreliable voters.
|
|
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 18, 2013 11:34:53 GMT -8
I think I trust fewer people this season than ever before. Like no one. Bravo Evan for sowing the seeds of indecision, paranoia and doubt!
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Sept 18, 2013 11:42:31 GMT -8
I'm happy to be nominated, at least I have a better chance of being a spy then non player.
I'm not sure what "safer" means, unless you mean safer for the spies. If we go with the assumption that a spy is more likely to at least show up and play, then we should choose from that pool of people. It's pretty simple.
If we get a diplomat, great, then we try to give them immunity the next week, all is good.
|
|
|
Post by Son Anheuser on Sept 18, 2013 11:48:20 GMT -8
Spy's all know each other and the only person they don't know is the assassin so they would not target a known diplomat but rather try to get the assassin first and then pick off diplomats later. Any time we discover a diplomat it helps the assassins as much as us. Unless I am missing something.
How do we know who has "Spy" all over them again?
|
|
|
Post by Son Anheuser on Sept 18, 2013 12:03:03 GMT -8
I'm happy to be nominated, at least I have a better chance of being a spy then non player. I'm not sure what "safer" means, unless you mean safer for the spies. If we go with the assumption that a spy is more likely to at least show up and play, then we should choose from that pool of people. It's pretty simple. If we get a diplomat, great, then we try to give them immunity the next week, all is good. I think history has shown that non players can be diplomats as easily as spies. People start off with good intentions and then for whatever reason can't play as much as they wanted. I was guilty of it last season and was killed early on.
|
|
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 18, 2013 12:08:23 GMT -8
Since the teams ore chosen at random, not all spies ( or any for that matter) will be vocal on the boards. The amount someone speaks has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt. We have as good a chance of hitting a spy by picking randomly- not choosing based on activity. That's why I'd rather take the risk on someone has offered nothing, and is likely to never offer anything to the game.
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Sept 18, 2013 12:20:23 GMT -8
I nominate myself. I want the world to know! Now here's a plan I can support! I'm happy to be nominated, at least I have a better chance of being a spy then non player. I'm not sure what "safer" means, unless you mean safer for the spies. If we go with the assumption that a spy is more likely to at least show up and play, then we should choose from that pool of people. It's pretty simple. If we get a diplomat, great, then we try to give them immunity the next week, all is good. You're new. The veterans understand that even the spies have non-players every year. 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. This is exactly the type of thinking the spies want and is totally wrong. We are NOT killing off an inactive friendly by polygraphing them. In the old way, this could make sense, but now it doesn't because we aren't killing the player we polygraph! At this point, we are guaranteed that the spies will kill an active diplomat(very possibly myself). It's going to happen no matter what we do. We can either add to that by polygraphing a non player and gaining nothing or we can actually have a chance of getting a spy! With how much Amer is fighting this and clearly arguing against rationality, I say we test him. Don't worry, Zac. People will vote for me eventually. They always do. Your campaign against me, this early, is interesting though. Let's take a look at it: - You privately asked me what my score for the challenge was, and then you happened to match it exactly, which resulted in Sarah winning immunity. Speaking of which, is anyone else surprised that Sarah managed such a high score without using a program? It makes you wonder if someone gave her the answer.
- You say you'd be willing to be nominated, but you never actually nominated yourself, the way Tulley has. It's just enough of a bluff to make people think you're sincere, without actually taking the risk.
- You claim that I look suspicious because I'm advocating the same starting plan that has existed in every previous Mildville.
- Then you claim that we should go after someone who is suspicious … right after you declared that I look suspicious. It's convenient that you made sure I didn't win immunity this week, isn't it?
- After you so expertly lied your way to a victory last season, you're probably the least trustworthy person here.
You want to vote for a likely spy? It's you. You're #1 on the list. If Tulley hadn't already explicitly volunteered himself, I would have voted for you. But that's okay. We can vote for you next week. If you survive that, you'll have credibility. Until then, I don't see how anyone can trust anything you say.
|
|
Farrell
Super Person
Bureau of Investigation Agent
Posts: 398
|
Post by Farrell on Sept 18, 2013 12:21:44 GMT -8
I am voting for someone who has posted a little. Voting for an inactive wastes an opportunity. Anyone who continues to push for an inactive is suspicious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Stinky Pete on Sept 18, 2013 12:25:18 GMT -8
We lose two Diplomat votes for next week—glug—regardless of what we do (unless the Assassin kills a Spy), but the Spies already know who the Diplomats are, and I don't think they have as much reason to kill someone we simply know—glug—is trustworthy, if they can kill someone whom they think will swing a vote toward one of them—glug—with the only thing that they can take away: the um, the what was it again? Glug, glug, glug—oh yeah, the vote! A known dead Diplomat is still someone we can trust to speak completely honestly.
Hey who drank all my Schnapps? Oh, right.
|
|
|
Post by Deviant Pennybags on Sept 18, 2013 12:26:24 GMT -8
I know I'm new, but I tend to agree with Annie, odds are that whoever is chosen is most likely going to be a diplomat, seeing as there are 17 of them. I'd rather vote for someone who isn't posting at this point seeing as how they aren't participating and if they're a spy, then it's just as good a chance as someone else who is active.
|
|
|
Post by Stinky Pete on Sept 18, 2013 12:29:33 GMT -8
Don't worry, Zac. People will vote for me eventually. They always do. Your campaign against me, this early, is interesting though. Let's take a look at it: - You privately asked me what my score for the challenge was, and then you happened to match it exactly, which resulted in Sarah winning immunity. Speaking of which, is anyone else surprised that Sarah managed such a high score without using a program? It makes you wonder if someone gave her the answer.
- You say you'd be willing to be nominated, but you never actually nominated yourself, the way Tulley has. It's just enough of a bluff to make people think you're sincere, without actually taking the risk.
- You claim that I look suspicious because I'm advocating the same starting plan that has existed in every previous Mildville.
- Then you claim that we should go after someone who is suspicious … right after you declared that I look suspicious. It's convenient that you made sure I didn't win immunity this week, isn't it?
- After you so expertly lied your way to a victory last season, you're probably the least trustworthy person here.
You want to vote for a likely spy? It's you. You're #1 on the list. If Tulley hadn't already explicitly volunteered himself, I would have voted for you. But that's okay. We can vote for you next week. If you survive that, you'll have credibility. Until then, I don't see how anyone can trust anything you say. I don't see why you're casting it as a campaign "against" you. I'm pretty sure the polygraph test has no needles, and if you're a Diplomat it just means everyone will listen to you because you're trustworthy
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Sept 18, 2013 12:29:54 GMT -8
I am voting for someone who has posted a little. Voting for an inactive wastes an opportunity. Anyone who continues to push for an inactive is suspicious to me. Anyone who claims they have some evidence that proves someone is a spy, but refuses to share it with the group, is suspicious to me. It sounds like an excuse to throw away your vote so no one can use it against you later. Either way, I'll be voting for Tulley. He volunteered himself. If he's proven to be a diplomat (which he probably will, since he actually volunteered instead of just saying he would … ), then we'll at least have one diplomat whom we can legitimately trust.
|
|