|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Apr 28, 2020 16:01:04 GMT -8
We have to keep all discussion in this thread. People complained that it's too overwhelming to have to check multiple threads. When I was studying games for this, we did everything: Discussion, voting, campaigning in one thread and it came out alright. We'll still vote in the vote thread, otherwise I might miss a vote. Thanks Evan, I can understand that. Hopefully quote chains will help. Or we could use the voting thread for defending. I'm open to whatever, I just find it hard to track the various things discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Apr 28, 2020 16:11:49 GMT -8
I also had a failed power. I suspect because some people have power stoppers. I'd be curious who stopped me cause I suspect it wouldn't be a bad person, since I'm so likely to die, why would they bother. Who was your target? I targeted someone who fell into my stated criteria above for suspicion. I can go through my list of suspects, but it would have to be later, as I would need to compile my list and post, but busy tonight. I'm also in no position to cast stones, cause it's just another person who might bring a log to my fire. The numbers as pointed out are such that my death and another good guy death overnight would be disasterous, so I should probably be less cavalier.
|
|
annie2
Super Person
I sense fiendish activity afoot.
Posts: 84
|
Post by annie2 on Apr 28, 2020 16:12:54 GMT -8
There was consensus that there have to be a couple of veterans among the villains. How many vets are left alive?
|
|
|
Post by merlotbrougham on Apr 28, 2020 16:48:44 GMT -8
Oh, and I also had a failed power. I suspect because some people have power stoppers. I'd be curious who stopped me cause I suspect it wouldn't be a bad person, since I'm so likely to die, why would they bother. Good question. I wonder if there was any additional information gained from the visit? Anyone have anything to add? Ron has already claimed the power of invisibility which is the ability to target someone at night and see who visits the target. That power doesn't seem very useful in the hands of a villain in the first place, really. Unless I'm missing something. Can someone explain to me what a "hero" gains by using a power stopper on a "villain" with invisibility? Wouldn't it be more likely the villians would want to use a power stopper on someone they know could potentially be watching the victim(s) of their night kill? Particularly since they know Ron's been getting the stinkeye and some votes, they figured they would just try to rush a quick kill this morning, which was already brewing. Please help me connect the dots here, heroes.
|
|
|
Post by bsketchy on Apr 28, 2020 17:11:22 GMT -8
There's no doubt in my mind that Ron is getting railroaded here. Stinkypete, you're voting for him because he peeped through your window night one, and you don't like his posting style. That's it, right? Why is everyone ignoring the "players" who aren't even playing? Neutrino, Buzzfly, Stabby? How are the heroes of Mildtropolis perfectly ok with their silence, but ready to lynch Ron for actually sharing info and trying to find the bad guys? At least Mike was honest with his vote. I know I'm new to this, but I really don't understand the "lynch Ron" logic.
|
|
|
Post by merlotbrougham on Apr 28, 2020 17:23:35 GMT -8
There's no doubt in my mind that Ron is getting railroaded here. Stinkypete, you're voting for him because he peeped through your window night one, and you don't like his posting style. That's it, right? Why is everyone ignoring the "players" who aren't even playing? Neutrino, Buzzfly, Stabby? How are the heroes of Mildtropolis perfectly ok with their silence, but ready to lynch Ron for actually sharing info and trying to find the bad guys? At least Mike was honest with his vote. I know I'm new to this, but I really don't understand the "lynch Ron" logic. Those concerns aside, it doesn't even matter who the votes are for. Why is everyone so eager to IMMEDIATELY kill all of a sudden? It's almost as though there are several baddies trying to force in another kill in very quickly before we even have time to talk about what happened last night. We need a kill today, but we need the RIGHT kill. Why don't we let son answer my earlier question about if he used his power on night one? Why don't we let someone answer some questions about the visit to Ron? Let's get some of these answers and then string up Ron if the pieces fit, but the effort going on right now seems pretty flimsy. Don't fall for it heroes. The only people who wouldn't want to discuss and just push a quick vote are shifty and need to explain the thought process to me. Perhaps you used some superpowers and learned something last night? I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by stinkypete on Apr 28, 2020 17:52:25 GMT -8
I'm not sure how "math" proves the innocence of anyone right now. As far as I'm concerned, Zac/Wednesday/Ron (Please pick a goddamn name by the way) is as guilty or innocent as anyone else. Farrell is right though - vote now and change it if you feel evidence is pointing somewhere else. But by all means if your vote is liable to tip the majority and you're not sure, we can make sure we've analyzed all that's available to us. I'm just not seeing much but I'll continue reading the thread. As far as I can tell, the only good reason Farrell has for voting for Wed/Ron is that Wed/Ron didn't think random voting on Day 1 was a good idea. I can look past that. We've had two nights to gather info and start making connections. I'd rather vote for someone who has remained 100% silent while heros die. I can also be persuaded by significant night results that anyone chooses to share. We need data. ^This post is a good example of strawmanning. I made a whole case that you're completely ignoring. Edit: sorry, this is a very good example of strawmanning: There's no doubt in my mind that Ron is getting railroaded here. Stinkypete, you're voting for him because he peeped through your window night one, and you don't like his posting style. That's it, right? Not great reasons to vote someone off: 1. They are vocal early for a strategy(even if you disagree with the strategy) 2. They write anything longer than 3 lines. 3. Because other people are talking about it, so must be a thing. 4. People on the evil team in the past or play well(Sorry Amer!) 5. They get stoned watching Anchorman See also: Motte and baileyThen do it Here, I'll consolidate and formalize my case. Go ahead and address it properly. Villains have to blend in, but they have to find some way to throw the heroes off their scent, and usually the only way to do that is to inject faulty reasoning and confusion into the discourse in a way that can be passed off as honest or "just having fun." Perhaps a hero clown could be around to weigh us down, but it's the test with the lowest available false negative rate imo. Here's where I show his attempt to juice the notion that "a reasonable number of people [want] to see death," and hence apply the very bandwagon argument which he suddenly, in today's thread, considers bad reasoning. Okay, we have to converge on something, this is where we have the most objective information, and sometimes you have to take a machete to all the little excuses and qualifications and plausible doubts. I vote to eliminate Wednesday. Just look at this. I couldn't find any basis for this post in the thread it was posted in. The only other person whose post could be construed as "wanting to see death" was Sarah's. So "a reasonable amount of people wanting to see death" is 2 people out of 18. Maybe three if you take Merlot's first post seriously. I think we have a reasonable amount of people wanting to see death. I'm good with killing a non participant. There are usually some evil players in that group and it's generally gamey, anyone got an easy list of those not posted yet? I say we go with the alphabetically first in the list? Or how about a dice roll? We can get the runtime of Trumps rant tonight and use the last two digits as a count? ^^That was a day after this post: We should certainly kill someone. Yes, it *might* be totally random, though Farrell advocating for not does put a target IMO. But here is the thing, nighttime, it's 100% a good guy will die all things equal. Daytime, it's 50% goodguy, 50% badguy if we vote. So, at end of week with vote, it's 1.5x chance good guy dies, .5x bad guy. Without a vote, it's 1x Good guy dies. Also, without voting, people won't talk, slow channel, which means we also get less chance of revealing anything. Only a bad guy would advocate for status quo when status quo is the slow death of the good. (Are we talking about mildville or politcs?) I'm trained by an adversarial relationship with cable news to spot this attempt to work the perception of public opinion like clay And here is where I identify what appears very strongly like feigned ignorance. I'm trained by years of heavy Twitter use to detect when people are being deliberately obtuse and blurring the conversation to hide their total lack of morals and hidden agenda. I still think the right move is voting for someone and each week, it'll get more clear that those pushing inaction are likely villians and dooming us as time goes on. The argument was 'wait a week becuase then we'll have our powers'. . .and I'm still waiting for the advocates of this strategy to give us a plan or explain how the powers are helpful. . .or why they didn't just cost us a week. I was trying to do this and didn't realize powers should be as super hidden but whatever. When people die we find out if they were heroes, and they can explain what their power was and all the information they got by using it. Look at the list of powers, some of them provide objective information that can be pieced together, but we don't know who has those yet, so we risk screwing ourselves more by killing a power that we desperately need for rooting out villains. Every living hero is a growing investment that cashes out at death. Further, by not killing a hero we get more cycles before the villains can reach a point where they can vote as a mask-off bloc and rush us The argument is not "wait a week because then we'll have our powers." The argument is that every death is very meaningful, and the deaths we have control over, we have to make count for something. The death needs to be a solid *get* for us. Heck, even if the plan is 'accuse me for trying to figure out a move', Pat yourself on the back some more. If we had killed Amer, we wouldn't know you targeted me, and the villains would have killed someone else to boot. Every hero is a hero we could have killed but didn't, who now has information that wouldn't be available if we had killed them. In sum, I submit a two-pronged principle of targeting/confirming/killing jesters. This is a game where we all have to be careful. If we do or suggest something, we need a good reason. Actions, proposals, and statements that damage the heroes or promote confusion, are the only way villains will ever reveal themselves. Why would any of us give them cover with our own levies of fog? If someone consistently displays confusing behavior and doesn't have a good reason, they are either: 1) a villain 2) a liability. Even if they're not pretending they don't understand what's going on, do you really want to watch from Club Dead while they navigate the end game? Because of course, the villains wouldn't want to kill a person they can easily hide among, a red herring, in the hopes we resort to earlier hunches anyway. To adapt from Cochran, "Playing or not, the fool gets shot!" Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Apr 28, 2020 18:50:32 GMT -8
This is super long to point by point and I lack the masterful forum skills to do it. But seems to be A. I'm a jester so kill me and B. sewing confusion with feigned ignorace and C, I'm feigning not understanding so I'm bad at this.
Regarding A.
- First, I've been myself, which sure, I try to keep my life with a little humor, but please look back. Other than maybe a little snark, you started calling me out nearly from the start for no reason. Your day 2 post against me cites 2 things which caused the whole 'I'm a cable new public perception thing' . I had two comments: 'Or how about a dice roll? We can get the runtime of Trumps rant tonight and use the last two digits as a count?' and 'Only a bad guy would advocate for status quo when status quo is the slow death of the good. (Are we talking about mildville or politcs?)' I don't know about you, but given all the news feeds of today, a little humor like this is in my regular life and don't consider out of place in any of my conversations. I think if you are who you are and are hoenst, then you are more likely a hero, becuase you are speaking from your ideas and expereince, nothing to coordinate or hide. It's the well crafted and angled posts with bullet lists that are odd.
- Also, just this theory in generael is bad. Finding someone's humor offputting or disagreeing on strategy are bad metrics for voting. What's the theory here? Punish me so we all lose and 'that'll teach me'? Really, you'd like to lose to make a point to me about changing to make sure 'the fool' gets shot over a bad guy? I think this logic puts a pretty clear target on yourself more than me. I'll let the peanut gallery decide on this one, but I'd be looking for bad guys among them that suggest this is smart voting.
B. So, I will agree with your premise here. Promoting confusion doesn't help us. But you've been amplifing this minor disagreement from the start. I sent you a message saying 'let's not let this overtake the threads'. . no response from you. I've tried to get us back on topic, look at voting, find ways to organize the threads, talk about powers, ask about powers, shared. All you've done is make this silly disagreement over day one votes the center of the topic and complain I changed my name or quoted from a movie. Who is really causing confusion here and focuson on the irrelevant?
Lastly there seems to be this knock on me about 'prentending they don't understand', but reading back on the posts, I'm doing that just as much as everyone else. . .And am sharing as much as anyone. We don't know how powers work, or who has what. We didn't know deaths were tied together, we're all learning. A liability, really? I've played this several times, been on some winning teams, participating, trying to not amplify noise. . .and also, we're getting close to done here. We might not get the time to have liabilities if this is how we're deciding things.
|
|
|
Post by Neutrino Esquire on Apr 28, 2020 19:41:14 GMT -8
Why don't we let son answer my earlier question about if he used his power on night one? Some people have powers that depend on the dead. So since nobody died before night 1, night 2 may have been the first time they were able to use their powers. As for why I'm active but not posting... I just don't unless I have something valuable to add.
|
|
|
Post by stinkypete on Apr 28, 2020 20:26:53 GMT -8
This is super long to point by point and I lack the masterful forum skills to do it. But seems to be A. I'm a jester so kill me and B. sewing confusion with feigned ignorace and C, I'm feigning not understanding so I'm bad at this. Regarding A. - First, I've been myself, which sure, I try to keep my life with a little humor, but please look back. Other than maybe a little snark, you started calling me out nearly from the start for no reason. Your day 2 post against me cites 2 things which caused the whole 'I'm a cable new public perception thing' . I had two comments: 'Or how about a dice roll? We can get the runtime of Trumps rant tonight and use the last two digits as a count?' and 'Only a bad guy would advocate for status quo when status quo is the slow death of the good. (Are we talking about mildville or politcs?)' I don't know about you, but given all the news feeds of today, a little humor like this is in my regular life and don't consider out of place in any of my conversations. I think if you are who you are and are hoenst, then you are more likely a hero, becuase you are speaking from your ideas and expereince, nothing to coordinate or hide. It's the well crafted and angled posts with bullet lists that are odd. That's obviously not what I'm talking about. Anyone can see that. Having jokey window dressing around your suspicious suggestion is not itself suspicious, but making the suggestion and then posting one day later that you've concluded (based on a survey of everyone else's posts) that people are generally calling for it, is. Attempting to frame my case as being predicated entirely the existence of the jokes themselves, that's just an attempt to cash in on seized assets.
|
|
|
Post by sonletmein on Apr 28, 2020 20:31:58 GMT -8
i tried using my ower last night, i was told the action failed. I dont know anymore than what i was told. Anyone else try applying their powers any more information? Did you not use your powers on night one? There was nothing for me to do on night one as we had zero information just a list of names, half of which seemed to change.
|
|
|
Post by sonletmein on Apr 28, 2020 20:32:33 GMT -8
So no one used there powers, nothing to report?
|
|
|
Post by merlotbrougham on Apr 28, 2020 20:56:54 GMT -8
So no one used there powers, nothing to report? Yes. I used my powers on both nights. I have super-stealth. I have the ability to target someone at night and see who they visit. On night one, I watched Stabby visit Farrell. On night two I watched Trebec visit Wednesday/Ron. Wednesday/Ron says his powers failed on night 2. You do as well. Does anyone else have any information gained from their powers to start piecing any of this together? What is your power, son, and who did you try to use it on that it failed? Like I said on day 2, If everybody claims what they did and the result they got, we may be able to piece it together enough to find the liars and have a better chance of hitting a villain before we reach the point of no return.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Wednesday on Apr 28, 2020 21:02:39 GMT -8
This is super long to point by point and I lack the masterful forum skills to do it. But seems to be A. I'm a jester so kill me and B. sewing confusion with feigned ignorace and C, I'm feigning not understanding so I'm bad at this. Regarding A. - First, I've been myself, which sure, I try to keep my life with a little humor, but please look back. Other than maybe a little snark, you started calling me out nearly from the start for no reason. Your day 2 post against me cites 2 things which caused the whole 'I'm a cable new public perception thing' . I had two comments: 'Or how about a dice roll? We can get the runtime of Trumps rant tonight and use the last two digits as a count?' and 'Only a bad guy would advocate for status quo when status quo is the slow death of the good. (Are we talking about mildville or politcs?)' I don't know about you, but given all the news feeds of today, a little humor like this is in my regular life and don't consider out of place in any of my conversations. I think if you are who you are and are hoenst, then you are more likely a hero, becuase you are speaking from your ideas and expereince, nothing to coordinate or hide. It's the well crafted and angled posts with bullet lists that are odd. That's obviously not what I'm talking about. Anyone can see that. Having jokey window dressing around your suspicious suggestion is not itself suspicious, but making the suggestion and then posting one day later that you've concluded (based on a survey of everyone else's posts) that people are generally calling for it, is. Attempting to frame my case as being predicated entirely the existence of the jokes themselves, that's just an attempt to cash in on seized assets. I can truly say I have little idea what your case is predicated on because it's impossible to understand where this is coming from. What survey did I take? Where did I conclude anything at all after a single day? seized assets, wtf? You have been the one making bold declarations not me, picking up minor words in posts I literally take 10 seconds to write, while skipping bunches of them that don't fit your agenda. 95% of my posts from day one which anyone can sanely see are me trying to just sort things out and suggest strategies like everyone. Things unsure, cause I was: 'Either way, just from a gamesmanship perspective, elimiating less active has been our strategy, though I'm dubious it works.' - cause it often has been and I am unsure if it worked. or things like 'I spied on Pete because I still think anyone advocating for complacancy/status quo is wrong and it'll be our slow demise. But that was my only reason, he could easily be a good guy, who knows, I was just trying to learn something.' - again, i'm unsure, just sorting it out. or here? 'Just by a cursory glance at this thread past the initial hello, it doesn't seem like 18 active people. Maybe we can get a quick check in and our first real datalist of people choosing something. Who would *not* like to be on the list of people we choose to random sacrifice?' - Again, just trying some strategy here. One some people seemed to align with. Is your smoking gun really like this: 'I think we have a reasonable amount of people wanting to see death. I'm good with killing a non participant. There are usually some evil players in that group and it's generally gamey, anyone got an easy list of those not posted yet? ' Like you are seriously holding that as a smoking gun that and saying that in that statement I 'took a survey' and 'concluded' something? In the context of all my other posts and just written logic for day one.. . Ok Pete, I'm willing to die on this if you and the evil group thought this was the best way to get 2 more good kills super quick(me and tonight). I truly thought you were not evil till today, but this is just too ludicrious of a thing you've got going to be believable but I guess you probably just need to convince 1 good person to joing your insane bandwagon. If the group thinks that when I said the above line the first day after joining in the middle of my workday(where TBH, I probably didn't read more than a half page above), then yes, kill away. If this is an obvious worthless witchhunt of all witchhunts over nothing but maybe bad jokes, then I say we vote for Pete. Remember EVERYONE, please think about this. There will certainly be evil people bandwagoning. It's a reasonable play I guess but going after this so aggressivly was your failing.
|
|
annie2
Super Person
I sense fiendish activity afoot.
Posts: 84
|
Post by annie2 on Apr 29, 2020 4:23:10 GMT -8
In past mildvilles, long winded posts by people who have been targeted is just flailing by a villain on the chopping block.
|
|
|
Post by sonletmein on Apr 29, 2020 7:31:33 GMT -8
I used my power on Annie but it was blocked. She's a veterean player and I was suspicious of her questioning the value of the declarations as it would give us an angle to get some information. The fact I was blocked makes me more suspect of her. I am on the chopping block for the villains now I am assuming.
|
|
|
Post by stinkypete on Apr 29, 2020 7:34:10 GMT -8
'I think we have a reasonable amount of people wanting to see death. I'm good with killing a non participant. There are usually some evil players in that group and it's generally gamey, anyone got an easy list of those not posted yet? ' Like you are seriously holding that as a smoking gun that and saying that in that statement I 'took a survey' and 'concluded' something? In the context of all my other posts and just written logic for day one.. . When pressed on your reason for posting it, you fell back on waving your hand about how you're just so silly. Why did you think it? Did you think it? Either: 1) you don't understand how to digest other people's posts but decided your strategy as a hero is to post a lot of stuff you didn't really put thought into, in order to help us think rationally 2) you were lying 3) there really was a reasonable amount of people wanting to see death in the context of your suggestion I went through the threads and didn't see this reasonable number
|
|
annie2
Super Person
I sense fiendish activity afoot.
Posts: 84
|
Post by annie2 on Apr 29, 2020 7:42:54 GMT -8
I used my power on Annie but it was blocked. She's a veterean player and I was suspicious of her questioning the value of the declarations as it would give us an angle to get some information. The fact I was blocked makes me more suspect of her. I am on the chopping block for the villains now I am assuming. How could reports from dead people who only had the power to know the other is innocent help?
|
|
|
Post by merlotbrougham on Apr 29, 2020 7:48:26 GMT -8
I used my power on Annie but it was blocked. She's a veterean player and I was suspicious of her questioning the value of the declarations as it would give us an angle to get some information. The fact I was blocked makes me more suspect of her. I am on the chopping block for the villains now I am assuming. Interesting. Annie, what was your night action last night? Any good results?
|
|
annie2
Super Person
I sense fiendish activity afoot.
Posts: 84
|
Post by annie2 on Apr 29, 2020 8:01:03 GMT -8
I have the power to switch players. I tried to switch Ron and Judy but it failed. I assume i got blocked but it could be because Judy got traded out and i hadn't noticed.
|
|