Conquer Club

F1fth wrote:What makes me nervous about this method of voting is that a vote on someone else can hammer someone. Let me explain by example:

Person A has 5 votes
Person B has 2 votes
Person C has 1 vote

3 people haven't voted yet.

Now under these conditions, there wouldn't be a lynch. But, if one of those three nonvoting people votes for Person C, it would get Person A lynched, even though there was no hammer on Person A and the majority of people have not voted for Person A.

That allows scum to indirectly hammer people. Not a good thing.

Yes, but as the mod tells us just how many of such votes are required for the lynch and we keep track we will know that they are trying to do that...

/ wrote:

dunc_2007 wrote:I agree with PCM. Whoever the rogue is, try to only kill when you're almost positive your victim is the thing.

As for there being no thing kill tonight, I think it's safe to assume they recruited someone. It'll be pretty tough for the doc to protect the right person at such an early stage in the game.

And as for ace, he may have been unaware that he was actually casting the hammering vote. It would be nice if we could hear from him.

I disagree, The rouge, being town, increases our survival probabilities if he kills every night with decent judgment, we are all in the dark here since we don't have investigators, and logically town is shrinking every night, through kills or recruiting, right now we are most likely against three things, we might as well try to end this fast and control more kills per phase than the thing, before there are more.
So if the rouge kills a thing, score one for town, if he kills town, that's bad, but unavoidable, at least we have less suspects to deal with, it's the same with lynching. We can only try our best.
Besides, fircoal didn't even post.
So FOS dunc and perhaps PCM, for wanting the rouge not to use his abilities, a scenario which benefits the things more than town.

Yes, dying does often make one live longer, doesn't it?

Lemme put it in perspective:

cena-rules
spiesr
william18
ga7
animorpherv1
drake_259
dunc_2007
pmchugh
ace1217
LSU Tiger Josh
/
Stroop

sam_levi_11

switchblade
pancakemix
F1fth

In this example, the bottom three are the thing, and the separated one is the rogue. If we lynch every day and both the rogue and thing kill, we're done in four days if the rogue misses his target and we mislynch. Yes, this is a worst case scenario, but Murphy's law is always applicable, I think.

I'm not saying the rogue shouldn't kill, I'm saying he should chillax a bit and not just kill on the fly.

I maintain that a no lynch helps out the thing more then it would town. The thing is like a cult in that it can expand each night. So what if we kill one off during the night and no lynch each day. End result is we would lose just because that would cancel out the add to each night. Now if we have a successful doctor preventing an increase of the thing at night then it might work, but that is putting too much faith in the doctor.

you have so little faith in me pcm!

anyway, i think basically DO NOT VOTE UNLESS YOU ARE SURE!

That way we can be more careful and anyone voting for pointless reasons is dodgy.

Also i think the rogue requires luck tbh, we need him to hit "thing" but if he continually misses it f*ck us up.

LSU Tiger Josh wrote:I maintain that a no lynch helps out the thing more then it would town. The thing is like a cult in that it can expand each night. So what if we kill one off during the night and no lynch each day. End result is we would lose just because that would cancel out the add to each night. Now if we have a successful doctor preventing an increase of the thing at night then it might work, but that is putting too much faith in the doctor.

--1st night 100% chance Turn into a 'thing', 0% chance the player dies
--2nd night 50% chance Turn into a 'thing', 50% chance the player dies
--3rd night 25% chance Turn into a 'thing', 75% chance the player dies
--4th night 12.5% chance Turn into a 'thing', 87.5% chance the player dies
--5th night (and all following nights) 10% chance Turn into a 'thing', 90% chance the player dies

We've had 1st and 2nd, so from here on it's unlikely there will be more than one recruitment (There's almost a 50% chance that the thing doesn't recruit anyone for the next 5 nights).

I also agree the rouge should be calmer, and attack only if (s)he is sure he thinks they are the thing rather than a random kill

To those that are advocating a rogue kill each night becuase it's a race against time, you're overestimating the recruiting power of the thing. From this point on, the chances of recruiting another member are fairly low, so it's almost like a regular game against 3 mafia (or 2 if the doc got lucky last night). There's no sense in killing someone each night without reason, it would just destroy the town even quicker.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to kill someone, go for it. Just make sure there's actually reason to believe they're scum.

Okay so who is the thing?

would be short game if they owned uo now

Agreed on the vig issue. However there's one possibility (frankly it's unlikely, but still possible) that we haven't considered: that both the thing and the rogue targeted Fircoal. That would have been a very lucky occurance, but we won't really know until the end, so I guess there's no use speculating.

But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

F1fth wrote:But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

Okay dunc_2007 fess up.

About the rogue, considering there's only 2 things right now out there, I think he should keep killing suspicious people.
I thought about it for a while but it does seem better to inform everyone: yesterday I got a message that the thing tried to kill/recruit me, but the doc protected me. Only I, the doc and the thing knew this. So basically we're facing 2 scum vs 14 players, hopefully with the lower odds the thing won't be able to recruit anyone else, and that means we're gonna have to clear the field a bit to find them out, hence why I think the vig is useful.
I don't really see a clear suspect right now as I believe a lynch was needed yesterday and as I thought Ace didn't notice he was hammering... Will reread to see if there was something else

ga7 wrote:About the rogue, considering there's only 2 things right now out there, I think he should keep killing suspicious people.
I thought about it for a while but it does seem better to inform everyone: yesterday I got a message that the thing tried to kill/recruit me, but the doc protected me. Only I, the doc and the thing knew this. So basically we're facing 2 scum vs 14 players, hopefully with the lower odds the thing won't be able to recruit anyone else, and that means we're gonna have to clear the field a bit to find them out, hence why I think the vig is useful.
I don't really see a clear suspect right now as I believe a lynch was needed yesterday and as I thought Ace didn't notice he was hammering... Will reread to see if there was something else

Looks like the thing picked up some idea's from reading Day 2. Good to know that there are only 2.

That is reassuring, but the rogue shouldn't just pull a name out of a hat. He should only kill if he's really sure about what he's doing.

spiesr wrote:

F1fth wrote:But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

Okay dunc_2007 fess up.

agreed. Answers are wanted.

animorpherv1 wrote:

spiesr wrote:

F1fth wrote:But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

Okay dunc_2007 fess up.

agreed. Answers are wanted.

Honestly, I was unaware that I was putting her at L-1. I hadn't bothered to count up exactly how many votes were needed. The lynch took me by surprise, as it did to many others. I would have never knowingly put her at L-1 without a claim.

dunc_2007 wrote:Honestly, I was unaware that I was putting her at L-1. I hadn't bothered to count up exactly how many votes were needed. The lynch took me by surprise, as it did to many others. I would have never knowingly put her at L-1 without a claim.

Then this quote applies to you.

F1fth wrote:But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

spiesr wrote:

dunc_2007 wrote:Honestly, I was unaware that I was putting her at L-1. I hadn't bothered to count up exactly how many votes were needed. The lynch took me by surprise, as it did to many others. I would have never knowingly put her at L-1 without a claim.

Then this quote applies to you.

F1fth wrote:But as for the search for scum, I would press (not lynch, press) some of the Skoffin bandwagoners that voted her with little to no explanation. Scum always look for an easy bandwagon to jump on, and if she hadn't been accidentally lynched before claim, then there would have been no particular suspicion on any of her voters.

1) I'm not sure how what I said relates to that quote.

2)I don't know why you're so intent on singling me out. There were plenty of others on that wagon (LSU, stroop, etc.) And what about ace, who hammered skoffin? That's less suspicious than my vote?

1. You were a middle band wagoner.
2. You are resisting to probing so I am continuing it.

I think the "middle of the wagon" argument is total crap, but ah well. From what I read so far I doubt Dunc is guilty... There's not much argument for either way though.

This game is moving rather slowly and its probably becuase everyone is too dam scared to vote. But we need to, so we can get on with the game. Just make sure that you arent hammering if their is a wagon or a lot of people have voted, and if you see someone close to a lynching make sure you point it out.

Anyway its good to hear the thing was stupid enough to try ga7 just after we had talked about him. Although theres a bit of WIFOM and stuff I still think it more likely that scum is a noob. And ace hammered with no explanation:

vote ace.

That ace hammered is not something I'm concerned about. I'm almost positive he voted without realizing it would hammer. Most of us didn't realize it either. However, I don't like that he voted without explanation, and thus share your sentiment on putting pressure on him.

Also, given the particular voting style, how about before everyone's vote, they write confirm in bold to confirm that they counted the votes and are sure they aren't hammering. If the person wants to hammer, they can write hammer. This is nothing official, but just something for town's sake.

Obviously, it would be in the best interest for us because we wouldn't have any accidental lynches, and anyone who refused to follow procedure would have questionable motivations.

Confirm Vote Ace

^^^ an example (and my vote)

Well, that's what he claims:

ace1217 wrote:Wait, my vote killed skoffin? What weird voting system is going on in this game? My vote wasn't intended to be a hammer, it was pressure. As for why I voted her, I figured that the reasoning already stated was enough reasoning.

He hasn't said anything thing since then...

vote:ace I feel like this is the best move for the town, personally.

F1fth wrote:Also, given the particular voting style, how about before everyone's vote, they write confirm in bold to confirm that they counted the votes and are sure they aren't hammering. If the person wants to hammer, they can write hammer. This is nothing official, but just something for town's sake.

Obviously, it would be in the best interest for us because we wouldn't have any accidental lynches, and anyone who refused to follow procedure would have questionable motivations.

Any input on this idea?