|
Post by Ourobolus on Oct 22, 2015 5:33:30 GMT -8
CURRENT VOTES:
Kalor (1)
Sorian Pop-o-matic
Gorlak (1)
Scrafty
Pop-o-matic (2) Kalor Cabot
Roytheone (1) Fireblend
Fireblend (1) Roytheone
Sorian (2) Hyperactivity Gorlak
Swamped (2) Sorian Splinter
Palmer (1) Cabot
Splinter (1) Swamped
Cabot (1) Palmer
9 votes are needed for majority today.
|
|
|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 22, 2015 5:33:36 GMT -8
On the subject of neutrals:
I think it is a relatively safe assumption that there is one neutral in this game. The way our win condition is worded defiantly hints at there being a neutral, and having 2 or more in a 16 player game is unlikely (but not impossible). About which power he/she has and if it is more town aligned or scum aligned is very hard to say now. We will most likely have more to work with tomorrow on that front.
About having multiple scum teams: very unlikely, but technically possible if there are two teams of 2 scum each, and only one faction can kill each night. Still, very unlikely and I think we should assume we are dealing with only one scum team unless things happen that point to something different.
|
|
|
Post by cabot on Oct 22, 2015 5:46:37 GMT -8
1) Don't claim to be town/FOXHOUND right away you're just asking for trouble. 2) Don't vote for Sorian, someone will kill him on the first night even if he's not town. Yo, GC, roy broke your number one rule and you didn't even notice Well, this is interesting. Because I am town, and I think it is well established that if I Lynch you in a game, I will always win. And if I win, town wins. So if you are town and want to win, you should be ok with lynching yourself, wouldn't you? VOTE: Fireblend Not that I have a vendetta against Weedy von Cheesebeuger here, just found it interesting you say something like that while missing someone breaking it a mere fifteen minutes prior!
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 5:57:47 GMT -8
Interesting discussion while I was in bed but ultimately, nothing that will help us figure out day 1. Hyper is right though, neither GC or Splinter is probably our pick for today and doing a WIFOM all day is just going to weaken what we can look at when we come back to this day later.
VOTE: Matt
Both you and Pop are flying under with the minimum amount of work so I think it's time you speak up (I'm giving Pop a grace period for this being his first real Gafia game and it appears cabot has him covered anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Fireblend on Oct 22, 2015 6:01:32 GMT -8
Changed my name back to avoid any potential vote confusion.
I'm back! Sorry about the absence yesterday. Time for some Tactical Mafia Action.
Anyway, I agree that statements that may be interpreted as "claim hints" shouldn't be acted upon right now (unless they're a threat) but definitely remembered. No one strikes me as particularly suspicious so far either; so I agree getting people to post is a good course of action for now.
On that note, I'll switch my vote to Coppa since he's barely posted (has he posted?) and I agree with most of what Roy has said so far and have nothing to push him with so my vote might as well go elsewhere. I'm wondering if, as people are more experienced with this game, it will take a bigger amount of votes on them to get a response as a result from votes; seems like everyone now knows that having one vote on them on the first day isn't that huge of a deal :P
VOTE: Coppanuva
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 6:10:00 GMT -8
Changed my name back to avoid any potential vote confusion. I'm back! Sorry about the absence yesterday. Time for some Tactical Mafia Action. Anyway, I agree that statements that may be interpreted as "claim hints" shouldn't be acted upon right now (unless they're a threat) but definitely remembered. No one strikes me as particularly suspicious so far either; so I agree getting people to post is a good course of action for now. On that note, I'll switch my vote to Coppa since he's barely posted ( has he posted?) and I agree with most of what Roy has said so far and have nothing to push him with so my vote might as well go elsewhere. I'm wondering if, as people are more experienced with this game, it will take a bigger amount of votes on them to get a response as a result from votes; seems like everyone now knows that having one vote on them on the first day isn't that huge of a deal VOTE: CoppanuvaHe posted mostly between page 3 and 5 and they are very fluff-like (sorry nin!) posts. He would be sitting at third most inactive (without an excuse) if I had expanded my list to 3 so I don't disagree with your choice.
|
|
|
Post by Fireblend on Oct 22, 2015 6:12:14 GMT -8
He posted mostly between page 3 and 5 and they are very fluff-like (sorry nin!) posts. He would be sitting at third most inactive (without an excuse) if I had expanded my list to 3 so I don't disagree with your choice. Ah, you're right. I was still around when he posted those so I guess they were not very memorable :P I'll stick with my vote for the same reasons. Hoping to hear more from him.
|
|
|
Post by Coppanuva on Oct 22, 2015 6:17:41 GMT -8
Changed my name back to avoid any potential vote confusion. I'm back! Sorry about the absence yesterday. Time for some Tactical Mafia Action. Anyway, I agree that statements that may be interpreted as "claim hints" shouldn't be acted upon right now (unless they're a threat) but definitely remembered. No one strikes me as particularly suspicious so far either; so I agree getting people to post is a good course of action for now. On that note, I'll switch my vote to Coppa since he's barely posted ( has he posted?) and I agree with most of what Roy has said so far and have nothing to push him with so my vote might as well go elsewhere. I'm wondering if, as people are more experienced with this game, it will take a bigger amount of votes on them to get a response as a result from votes; seems like everyone now knows that having one vote on them on the first day isn't that huge of a deal VOTE: CoppanuvaFair enough, I did post some early on but then kinda petered out (booo work). I have been reading though, and lucky(?) for you all I just woke up and should be more active today. One thing I'd like to at least think about is how many people do we think are non-FOXHOUND agents? If we're going with the prevailing theory of "Any neutral party must be killed for us to win as well", I think we should take that into account as part of how many people we're looking for. I think at most philanthropy likely has 4 members (Metal Gear wiki says the only named members are Snake, Otacon, Mei Ling, and Natasha Romanenko). As for our unnamed enemies (neutrals), I'm going to randomly guess 2. If there's 4 I feel like FOXHOUND would be way too underpowered voting-wise, likewise with 3. 1 just seems like too few neutrals to have a clause specifically called out.
|
|
|
Post by Hyperactivity on Oct 22, 2015 6:38:38 GMT -8
There's also the entirely possible possibility that the win condition was phrased such to make us think that there is a neutral, when in reality there isn't.
I remember Ouro not really liking players trying to play the "guess what the mod was doing/thinking" game, and his last game apparently was partially to punish players who tried to think along those lines to much. So I could totally see him making it the case that the win condition is phrased the way it is but there isn't any neutral in the game to begin with
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 6:47:11 GMT -8
The possibilities are 3 or 4 scum and then 0, 1, or 2 neutrals. So there are a few different possibilities there but for balance, I think the following 4 scenarios are most likely:
4 scum/0 neutrals 4 scum/1 neutral (win condition is passive and does not involve killing town members) 3 scum/1 neutral (win condition is aggressive and does include killing) 3 scum/2 neutrals (win conditions are tied to each other, trying to lynch each other, identify the other each night, etc. when one leaves the game, the other probably will as well)
|
|
|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 22, 2015 6:57:22 GMT -8
The possibilities are 3 or 4 scum and then 0, 1, or 2 neutrals. So there are a few different possibilities there but for balance, I think the following 4 scenarios are most likely: 4 scum/0 neutrals 4 scum/1 neutral (win condition is passive and does not involve killing town members) 3 scum/1 neutral (win condition is aggressive and does include killing) 3 scum/2 neutrals (win conditions are tied to each other, trying to lynch each other, identify the other each night, etc. when one leaves the game, the other probably will as well) If I have to guess right now, your third option is most likely. However, that is mostly based on how the other smaller games were designed, and even there there were things like minions and underpowered scum. It's impossible to figure this out right now, more things need to happen first.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 7:29:56 GMT -8
The possibilities are 3 or 4 scum and then 0, 1, or 2 neutrals. So there are a few different possibilities there but for balance, I think the following 4 scenarios are most likely: 4 scum/0 neutrals 4 scum/1 neutral (win condition is passive and does not involve killing town members) 3 scum/1 neutral (win condition is aggressive and does include killing) 3 scum/2 neutrals (win conditions are tied to each other, trying to lynch each other, identify the other each night, etc. when one leaves the game, the other probably will as well) If I have to guess right now, your third option is most likely. However, that is mostly based on how the other smaller games were designed, and even there there were things like minions and underpowered scum. It's impossible to figure this out right now, more things need to happen first. It's a thought worth keeping in the back of people's minds. We could also take it a step further and say that there are 3 scum and 1 neutral but that neutral is a lost partner or something like BSP in election. But yes, we aren't solving this mystery today. I don't mind hearing people's thoughts on it though. I still want to hear more from Matt and Pop though.
|
|
|
Post by Ourobolus on Oct 22, 2015 7:36:45 GMT -8
(I made an error in the last tally, so here's a new one)
CURRENT VOTES:
Kalor (1)
Sorian Pop-o-matic
Gorlak (1) Scrafty
Pop-o-matic (2) Kalor Cabot
Roytheone (1) Fireblend
Fireblend (1) Roytheone
Sorian (2) Hyperactivity Gorlak
Swamped (1)
Sorian Splinter
Palmer (1) Cabot
Splinter (1) Swamped
Cabot (1) Palmer
Matt (1) Sorian
9 votes are needed for majority today.
|
|
|
Post by Coppanuva on Oct 22, 2015 7:36:38 GMT -8
If I have to guess right now, your third option is most likely. However, that is mostly based on how the other smaller games were designed, and even there there were things like minions and underpowered scum. It's impossible to figure this out right now, more things need to happen first. It's a thought worth keeping in the back of people's minds. We could also take it a step further and say that there are 3 scum and 1 neutral but that neutral is a lost partner or something like BSP in election. But yes, we aren't solving this mystery today. I don't mind hearing people's thoughts on it though. I still want to hear more from Matt and Pop though. Yeah, I agree we won't make any headway in terms of getting concrete info until tomorrow. I do, however, think getting an idea of how many people aren't aligned with us is a good idea, even if it's a guess at a rough number. Also thanks for reminding me I forgot to put in my vote before I left my house for the office. Pop seems to have plenty of pressure, but I do think Matt has contributed about as much as me so far, maybe even less. So let's put on some more pressure. Vote: Matt Attack
|
|
|
Post by Pop-O-Matic on Oct 22, 2015 7:47:27 GMT -8
Sorry about not posting much guys. My sleep schedule's fubar right now.
Anyway, with me, Sorian and Matt tied at two a piece, I guess I should switch my vote to ensure I don't get lynched. Sorian, Matt: Make your case to me why you should live.
|
|
|
Post by Fireblend on Oct 22, 2015 7:49:59 GMT -8
I think BSP showed us (or at least me) that we should be way more distrustful of potential neutrals - my thoughts on how to handle them definitely shifted after that :P
|
|
|
Post by Swamped on Oct 22, 2015 7:53:21 GMT -8
Come on Coppa, you should know GC by now. He plays by his own rules when it comes to claiming. Still, wonder why Cabot decided to bring attention to that. It sounds like that Psycho Mantis guy would be on Foxhound's side, from a quick wiki search. Of course, GC could also just be having some fun with the flavor and none of this discussion matters in the end, or maybe he was baiting. I'll leave it to GC to answer or not. Since we're here, staring deeply into each other's eyes, wondering the world of each other, I did find it curious why you decided to defend GC so early off the bat. We're all experienced here, we don't need much help when someone questions us. Early alliances seems a risky strategy, unless you know something we don't. I'll just expand on Sorian's thought that it is worth noting these little 'throwaway' lines and claims or whatever. People who seem to be intent on writing them off as 'facetious' are being too accommodating in my opinion. Sure, it's obviously not strong evidence but discarding it completely is the wrong way to go about it. I say this as a person who has used early posts in the past to hint at things. It's Day 1. It's about the best time to play with coy statements that may be linked to something you know. Wow, "alliance", exaggerating much? I agree with others, I think looking too deeply at GC and Splinter's claims is too WIFOM at this stage. I'm more interested in how people reacted to those claims. I will say this - there are many reasons people act weirdly during D1, and it's not necessarily because they are scum. I also think it's noteworthy that GC reacted to others calling him out on his claim (ughh multiquoting here is such a pain), he essentially said that he was having fun with the flavor. Splinter, I don't think addressed his NK immune statement however? I'll just leave it at that. Now this might be a little harsh on my part, but I see Cabot calling out GC as some form of role-fishing . Keeping my eye on you Cabot! Next - OMGUS. So far three people have done this. Me, Pop, and Palmer. I know that I'm joking. Regarding Pop/Kalor, was really hoping that Kalor would chime in about their votes for each other. I remember Splinter did a OMGUS vote in DR as a first time mafia. Not that this means anything regarding Pop, Pop hasn't posted enough for me to even have a gut feeling about him. However, Palmer...he states he finds Splinter's RC suspicious, and yet votes for Cabot just cause. He also says that would be his last post this day phase, which is totally fine, so I'm not expecting him to argue back or anything. I'm not planning on voting to lynch him at this stage since he hasn't had a chance to post much, but I'm going to keep a close eye on him. Sorian voted for me, I think because I liked my own post? Is there some other reason you have kept your vote on me? Since then you have called out other players on suspicious behavior, but I notice you didn't reflect that in your vote. Scrafty used the term 'Philanthropy' to refer to the mafia. I'm not that familiar with the source material, but I would like to know if everyone assumed that that was the name of the mafia faction. Like I said previously, it's not clear from our win condition what the mafia faction is called. I feel like the discussion about the number of neutral/mafia parties is kind of counterproductive at this early stage of the game. So yeah, keeping an eye on Sorian, Cabot and Palmer, with some others in there too. Of course, it's too early to really have anything definitive on anyone. What one person finds scummy, another may not. VOTE: Sorian
|
|
|
Post by Swamped on Oct 22, 2015 7:57:26 GMT -8
Awwww crap, Sorian changed his vote? THANKS A LOT for invalidating my point, Sorian!
I'm still going to keep my vote for now though. I kinda didn't want to say this because it's really really just an irrational/stubborn gut feeling and there's no real proof, but I find that Sorian is acting a lot like I did in the early stages of the Danganronpa game...
|
|
|
Post by Swamped on Oct 22, 2015 8:00:40 GMT -8
I think BSP showed us (or at least me) that we should be way more distrustful of potential neutrals - my thoughts on how to handle them definitely shifted after that I don't think a neutral will actually come out to us. Our win condition specifically tells us that we only win when FOXHOUND players remain. If we figure out the presence of a neutral, we have to lynch them at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 8:00:22 GMT -8
Wow, "alliance", exaggerating much? I agree with others, I think looking too deeply at GC and Splinter's claims is too WIFOM at this stage. I'm more interested in how people reacted to those claims. I will say this - there are many reasons people act weirdly during D1, and it's not necessarily because they are scum. I also think it's noteworthy that GC reacted to others calling him out on his claim (ughh multiquoting here is such a pain), he essentially said that he was having fun with the flavor. Splinter, I don't think addressed his NK immune statement however? I'll just leave it at that. Now this might be a little harsh on my part, but I see Cabot calling out GC as some form of role-fishing . Keeping my eye on you Cabot! Next - OMGUS. So far three people have done this. Me, Pop, and Palmer. I know that I'm joking. Regarding Pop/Kalor, was really hoping that Kalor would chime in about their votes for each other. I remember Splinter did a OMGUS vote in DR as a first time mafia. Not that this means anything regarding Pop, Pop hasn't posted enough for me to even have a gut feeling about him. However, Palmer...he states he finds Splinter's RC suspicious, and yet votes for Cabot just cause. He also says that would be his last post this day phase, which is totally fine, so I'm not expecting him to argue back or anything. I'm not planning on voting to lynch him at this stage since he hasn't had a chance to post much, but I'm going to keep a close eye on him. Sorian voted for me, I think because I liked my own post? Is there some other reason you have kept your vote on me? Since then you have called out other players on suspicious behavior, but I notice you didn't reflect that in your vote. Scrafty used the term 'Philanthropy' to refer to the mafia. I'm not that familiar with the source material, but I would like to know if everyone assumed that that was the name of the mafia faction. Like I said previously, it's not clear from our win condition what the mafia faction is called. I feel like the discussion about the number of neutral/mafia parties is kind of counterproductive at this early stage of the game. So yeah, keeping an eye on Sorian, Cabot and Palmer, with some others in there too. Of course, it's too early to really have anything definitive on anyone. What one person finds scummy, another may not. VOTE: Sorian
If you are voting for me because I haven't switched my vote then you seem to not be paying attention. I'd suggest you see the quoted post from myself below. In terms of my original vote for you, yes, it was a joke based on you liking your own post. I had nothing interesting to go on at the time and my random vote on Kalor had already been answered.
[/quote] Interesting discussion while I was in bed but ultimately, nothing that will help us figure out day 1. Hyper is right though, neither GC or Splinter is probably our pick for today and doing a WIFOM all day is just going to weaken what we can look at when we come back to this day later. VOTE: Matt
Both you and Pop are flying under with the minimum amount of work so I think it's time you speak up (I'm giving Pop a grace period for this being his first real Gafia game and it appears cabot has him covered anyway). [/p]
---------
Sorry about not posting much guys. My sleep schedule's fubar right now. Anyway, with me, Sorian and Matt tied at two a piece, I guess I should switch my vote to ensure I don't get lynched. Sorian, Matt: Make your case to me why you should live.
I have no reason to make a case to you. Your silence on matters mixed with your inability to answer direct questions from people makes you the suspicious one, not me.
|
|
|
Post by Kalor on Oct 22, 2015 8:01:07 GMT -8
I guess I just did that based on numbers, a multi-faction game with 16 players seems like a stretch. This is MGS though, unfortunately anything is possible. Damn it, Kojima If we do have a third faction then I would assume that it would only be 1 person. Your Gray Fox suggestion would fit in nicely with that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Swamped on Oct 22, 2015 8:03:17 GMT -8
Sorian - I think you need to read my posts XD
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 8:03:46 GMT -8
Excuse the weird extra code things in the above post, I was playing with the multi-quote, not sure where those came from. Awwww crap, Sorian changed his vote? THANKS A LOT for invalidating my point, Sorian! I'm still going to keep my vote for now though. I kinda didn't want to say this because it's really really just an irrational/stubborn gut feeling and there's no real proof, but I find that Sorian is acting a lot like I did in the early stages of the Danganronpa game... Not my fault you aren't watching the proceedings. Gotta be a step ahead before you start accusing me of anything. That being said, how were you acting in the early stages of DR? I can't really confirm or deny your point unless you expand on it a bit.
Also in terms of your other question which I meant to answer. Ouro's original flavor says that the two groups in the room are Foxhound and Philanthropy so, for now, an assumption that Philanthropy is the scum team doesn't seem that far off base.
|
|
|
Post by Pop-O-Matic on Oct 22, 2015 8:05:42 GMT -8
I have no reason to make a case to you. Your silence on matters mixed with your inability to answer direct questions from people makes you the suspicious one, not me. When was I ever asked a direct question? All I saw reading through the thread was people saying I was suspicious for posting so little.
|
|
|
Post by Lone_Prodigy on Oct 22, 2015 8:06:09 GMT -8
Sorry about not posting much guys. My sleep schedule's fubar right now. Anyway, with me, Sorian and Matt tied at two a piece, I guess I should switch my vote to ensure I don't get lynched. Sorian, Matt: Make your case to me why you should live. It's too early to bandwagon. A couple stray votes aren't a big deal. It's more of a prod to post more, but since it's done so often it's kind of lost its impact. But you should still post more.
|
|
|
Post by Fireblend on Oct 22, 2015 8:07:37 GMT -8
Sorry about not posting much guys. My sleep schedule's fubar right now. Anyway, with me, Sorian and Matt tied at two a piece, I guess I should switch my vote to ensure I don't get lynched. Sorian, Matt: Make your case to me why you should live. This seems like a bad way to react to having a couple of votes on you. At this point you shouldn't read having votes on you as some aggressive move but a prompt for you to provide some thoughts on whatever's going on or, if there are unanswered questions you can answer, attempt to do so - reacting aggressively by reflecting and threatening a vote on people who already have multiple votes on them could be interpreted pretty negatively.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 8:09:27 GMT -8
I have no reason to make a case to you. Your silence on matters mixed with your inability to answer direct questions from people makes you the suspicious one, not me. When was I ever asked a direct question? All I saw reading through the thread was people saying I was suspicious for posting so little. Hmm, I thought that cabot asked you something as well but he appears to have just prodded you with a general "talk more" during his vote post. That's fine though, I've still got a whole post you left sitting out in the cold, alone. I don't know what to add. Anything in particular you want an opinion on? Has anyone said anything that you find weird? What are your thoughts on why they've said it or what it means? You can re-iterate something someone else has already mentioned if you want. You're just joining in so insight into what you found interesting is always helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Coppanuva on Oct 22, 2015 8:11:02 GMT -8
Excuse the weird extra code things in the above post, I was playing with the multi-quote, not sure where those came from. Awwww crap, Sorian changed his vote? THANKS A LOT for invalidating my point, Sorian! I'm still going to keep my vote for now though. I kinda didn't want to say this because it's really really just an irrational/stubborn gut feeling and there's no real proof, but I find that Sorian is acting a lot like I did in the early stages of the Danganronpa game... Not my fault you aren't watching the proceedings. Gotta be a step ahead before you start accusing me of anything. That being said, how were you acting in the early stages of DR? I can't really confirm or deny your point unless you expand on it a bit.
Also in terms of your other question which I meant to answer. Ouro's original flavor says that the two groups in the room are Foxhound and Philanthropy so, for now, an assumption that Philanthropy is the scum team doesn't seem that far off base.
Awww Sorian, I was hoping Scrafty was going to answer this and not have someone do it for her. That's the logical thing to assume (I did it myself when I brought up Philanthropy in my post), but answering questions for someone else isn't going to give them the chance to slip up
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 22, 2015 8:14:40 GMT -8
Excuse the weird extra code things in the above post, I was playing with the multi-quote, not sure where those came from. Not my fault you aren't watching the proceedings. Gotta be a step ahead before you start accusing me of anything. That being said, how were you acting in the early stages of DR? I can't really confirm or deny your point unless you expand on it a bit.
Also in terms of your other question which I meant to answer. Ouro's original flavor says that the two groups in the room are Foxhound and Philanthropy so, for now, an assumption that Philanthropy is the scum team doesn't seem that far off base.
Awww Sorian, I was hoping Scrafty was going to answer this and not have someone do it for her. That's the logical thing to assume (I did it myself when I brought up Philanthropy in my post), but answering questions for someone else isn't going to give them the chance to slip up Multiple people have already used their name in reference to the scum team. It would hardly be condemning evidence if someone was confused on why that's become the assumption and it seems like it would be a confusing waste of time as opposed to an actual "gotcha!" moment.
|
|
|
Post by Splinter on Oct 22, 2015 8:16:15 GMT -8
What? "Pressure votes" are pointless? Well, I don't want to say "I told you so" but...
Oh wait, nevermind, that's exactly what I want to say
|
|