It is currently Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:43 am 
Offline
Former Staff
User avatar

Joined: Apr 13, 2014
Posts: 618
Location: Kamigawa
Identity: Akki
Mission 2

Proposal 2.1

Leader: Mown
Team: Mown, Zinger2099, Garren_Windspear

Garren_Windspear - YES
Zinger2099 - YES
NeoSilk - NO
razorborne - NO
Niklor - YES
Rubik - NO
Mown - YES

Result: Team approved, Mown, Zinger2099 and Garren_Windspear may now PM me their mission cards.

_________________
"Stand back. I know just what to do."
—Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker


Code of Conduct


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:10 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
Oh wow, really? I was certain it would tank.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:11 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
round|nominator|team|Garren|Mown|Neo|Nik|Raz|Rubik|Zinger||Go?|Fails
1.1|Garren|Garren, Raz|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.2|Neo|Neo, Mown|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.3|Nik|Nik, Neo|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.4|Zinger|Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|{color=green}0
2.1|Mown|Mown, Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|?


so, vote questions time. Neo and I explained beforehand, and the people on the team make sense for voting yes so I don't really need an explanation from them.

Nik, why the yes? what about this team seemed particularly trustworthy?

Rubik, why the no? your stated policy of voting against anything you're not on only applied day 1, what's going on now?

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:51 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
razorborne wrote:
it's pretty sound logic. from a town perspective, given random selection, there is a 5% chance that a mission you're not on as town is scum-free, whereas if you're on it there's a 20% chance. that's 4 times more likely. you should always be much more likely to vote yes to teams you're on.

How can it be sound logic? If everyone follows, no team would ever get approved unless spies force them through (which they are unlikely to do, as it would red-flag them pretty hard.) So now you have 4 pointless rounds and then someone forced through something at round 5, hooray!
Is it only sound logic if other people don't adopt it as well? That doesn't sound very sound. At some point, you're going to have to compromise, or you're just dead weight.

razorborne wrote:
so, by the way, should this overreaction by Garren, which I'm filing away for later consideration and which is making me less comfortable with this mission than I already was. was leaning no, but I'm gonna go ahead and commit now.

What overreaction?

I would still encourage people to not be entirely transparent in their voting patterns, as long as we are lacking in information. It gives spies more room to maneuver.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:05 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan 31, 2015
Posts: 2574
Location: California
Identity: Rubik
It's no longer a policy vote, but the fact remains that a team without me is unlikely to succeed (though it is definitely still possible). If I see a reason to vote for a mission without me, I will, but that's currently not the case.

And while I will certainly be more likely to vote for a mission involving me, I will no longer automatically do so.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:35 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Nov 23, 2014
Posts: 1106
First mission passed, so either the scum are keeping their heads down or Zinger and Garren were truly resistance. I'd prefer to think the latter until something is proven otherwise. I could have fervently denied until I got the chance to be the third player, but since that mindset would more or less prevent us from sending out a party since at least 4 people would always not be that third player, I felt I should just vote now and see where it takes us.

_________________
"In the end, both heroes and villians are naught but furballs."

9:02 AM - Mown: Honestly though most anime characters don't look that anime.
4:06 AM: Grue: you can't put all ur problems on enchantments


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:49 pm 
Offline
Former Staff
User avatar

Joined: Apr 13, 2014
Posts: 618
Location: Kamigawa
Identity: Akki
The votes are shuffled up, and the results are two Pass and one Fail card!

Leadership passes to Rubik.

Mission 3 requires 3 participants.

The score is now 1:1, so it's anybody's game.

Again, sorry for no formatting, but I don't have a computer at work.

_________________
"Stand back. I know just what to do."
—Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker


Code of Conduct


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:18 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Mown wrote:
razorborne wrote:
it's pretty sound logic. from a town perspective, given random selection, there is a 5% chance that a mission you're not on as town is scum-free, whereas if you're on it there's a 20% chance. that's 4 times more likely. you should always be much more likely to vote yes to teams you're on.

How can it be sound logic? If everyone follows, no team would ever get approved unless spies force them through (which they are unlikely to do, as it would red-flag them pretty hard.) So now you have 4 pointless rounds and then someone forced through something at round 5, hooray!
Is it only sound logic if other people don't adopt it as well? That doesn't sound very sound. At some point, you're going to have to compromise, or you're just dead weight.
the important bit is "given random selection". it's a foundation to start from. we have additional information like day 1 voting and results (now day 2 as well) but it's still a valuable foundation. for instance, no matter how willing you are to compromise, you should never approve a mission 5 team you're not on because if you're town the odds of there being no spies is 0%. similarly, here, if I'm going to vote for a 3-person mission I'm not on, I want to be at least 4 times more confident than baseline that the mission is all town, because that's the odds I'm looking at. if I approve a 3-person mission I'm not on, then I am saying that I am fairly confident that the exact three other people excluded are the three spies. there's no wiggle room. it doesn't mean those missions don't exist, but it does mean that I'm going to be more careful, and anyone who isn't is shooting themself in the foot.

Mown wrote:
What overreaction?
so, a couple things. first, Neo is merely echoing a sentiment that was floated numerous times day 1, where Garren didn't say anything. why is it suddenly a big deal now? second, drastic hyperbolic reductionism ignoring the actual relativist claim being made ("I guess you shouldn't vote for any missions!") is a pretty serious overreaction to a simple statistical evaluation. Neo is right that the odds are worse bad compromising, and it appears to be their estimation that the fact that Garren and Zinger passed round 1 isn't enough to compensate. (turns out they were right.) you can debate whether that estimation is valid, but attacking the underlying principle of glancing at statistics every once in a while is just absurd.

Mown wrote:
I would still encourage people to not be entirely transparent in their voting patterns, as long as we are lacking in information. It gives spies more room to maneuver.
what? we'll always be lacking information, it's a deception game. but letting people vote without justification gives spies way more room to maneuver than holding people accountable for their decisions. you don't have to dump everything out there, but the only way the odds work in the town's favor is if we can evaluate the intentions behind the actions, and the only way to do that is to get people to disclose those intentions.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:20 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
round|nominator|team|Garren|Mown|Neo|Nik|Raz|Rubik|Zinger||Go?|Fails
1.1|Garren|Garren, Raz|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.2|Neo|Neo, Mown|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.3|Nik|Nik, Neo|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no||{color=red}no|NA
1.4|Zinger|Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|{color=green}0
2.1|Mown|Mown, Zinger, Garren|{color=green}yes|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes|{color=red}no|{color=red}no|{color=green}yes||{color=yellow}yes|{color=red}1


:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:27 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
Edit: Haven't read your latest post yet razorborne, will get to it.

Well, since mission 1 was a success, that still lets us win if we get a perfect team for the next one. If not, I am skeptical of getting through the last mission, although it's always a possibility. I would have preferred if my first mission didn't actually go through, but I'm just going to look overly suspicious if I keep rejecting teams I'm on, especially the ones I propose myself. In hindsight, I probably should have invited some other people for the purpose of information gathering, but I'm not sure how much that would accomplish in actuality.

I guess the obvious topic of the day (other than use three) is Niklor being in favor of the team. It's certainly a red flag, although it should be mentioned that Shockwave did the same mistake in the first game of Resistance we had, so it's not written in stone or anything, especially since he seemed to lean towards accepting missions during round 1. But, well, it's still suspicious.
razorborne also went from a pattern of accepting every mission, to rejecting this one, which also stands out to some extent. Now, maybe he then would also reject 1.3, but I don't think he would have a very sound argument for shifting gears at that point, before I denied myself.

Garren has said yes to everything, and Zinger said yes to all missions they were on, so it's difficult to extrapolate anything from that right now. I'll have to go back and read some conversations to see if anything sticks out.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:44 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan 31, 2015
Posts: 2574
Location: California
Identity: Rubik
I propose Rubik, Razorborne, and NeoSilk.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:03 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
razorborne wrote:
the important bit is "given random selection". it's a foundation to start from. we have additional information like day 1 voting and results (now day 2 as well) but it's still a valuable foundation.

So, when does it stop being random selection when everyone uses an objective and predictable method for voting? You are effectively ruining an entire round worth of valuable information, which is more important than ensuring you end up on a mission for that added chance of it succeeding.
razorborne wrote:
for instance, no matter how willing you are to compromise, you should never approve a mission 5 team you're not on because if you're town the odds of there being no spies is 0%. similarly, here, if I'm going to vote for a 3-person mission I'm not on, I want to be at least 4 times more confident than baseline that the mission is all town, because that's the odds I'm looking at. if I approve a 3-person mission I'm not on, then I am saying that I am fairly confident that the exact three other people excluded are the three spies. there's no wiggle room. it doesn't mean those missions don't exist, but it does mean that I'm going to be more careful, and anyone who isn't is shooting themself in the foot.

And when was that going to happen? Most likely never, unless you get something unreliable like a double fail result. NeoSilk stated "I'm not on this mission, so the chance of there being a spy on it is too high." That would probably not change for the entirety of round 2, and I don't really see it changing for this one either.

razorborne wrote:
so, a couple things. first, Neo is merely echoing a sentiment that was floated numerous times day 1, where Garren didn't say anything. why is it suddenly a big deal now?

Maybe he didn't see the need since someone else (me) addressed it the first time. I think you are the one making a big deal out of it.
razorborne wrote:
second, drastic hyperbolic reductionism ignoring the actual relativist claim being made ("I guess you shouldn't vote for any missions!") is a pretty serious overreaction to a simple statistical evaluation. Neo is right that the odds are worse bad compromising, and it appears to be their estimation that the fact that Garren and Zinger passed round 1 isn't enough to compensate. (turns out they were right.) you can debate whether that estimation is valid, but attacking the underlying principle of glancing at statistics every once in a while is just absurd.

eh. That feels more like Garren being Garren, and I haven't even played a game with him. I can see the comment as unnecessary, but I see it more as a snide remark than some strawman argument or whatever, probably because I could be prone to do the same, since I find the proposition ridiculous.

razorborne wrote:
what? we'll always be lacking information, it's a deception game. but letting people vote without justification gives spies way more room to maneuver than holding people accountable for their decisions. you don't have to dump everything out there, but the only way the odds work in the town's favor is if we can evaluate the intentions behind the actions, and the only way to do that is to get people to disclose those intentions.

Are you not capable of justifying your actions without telegraphing what you will do for the next five rounds? Votes carry more weight than words to me. If everyone is going around telling people how they will vote, you're more or less saying "this mission is going to go through, so you can safely reject it to look more favorable", "everyone else will reject it, if you accept it you will look scummy when it fails", "this mission is not going through if you help reject it", "the way you vote can make it seem like you are allied with certain people" or whatever other options are out there. Which is why I didn't want to state my agenda before the end of round 1.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:47 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Mown wrote:
So, when does it stop being random selection when everyone uses an objective and predictable method for voting? You are effectively ruining an entire round worth of valuable information, which is more important than ensuring you end up on a mission for that added chance of it succeeding.
voting no is ruining a round's worth of information?

I'm not saying vote no to every team you're not on. I'm saying consider the fact that, when you are not on a team as town, the odds of it being spy-less go way down. that's a really important thing to remember, and jumping down Neo's throat for bringing it up is silly.

Mown wrote:
And when was that going to happen? Most likely never, unless you get something unreliable like a double fail result. NeoSilk stated "I'm not on this mission, so the chance of there being a spy on it is too high." That would probably not change for the entirety of round 2, and I don't really see it changing for this one either.
I didn't interpret Neo's post as a literal declaration that they wouldn't vote for any team they weren't on (although, again, Rubik made exactly that declaration day 1 and Garren didn't say anything.) just that, given their position, the team looked too likely to be scummy.

Mown wrote:
Maybe he didn't see the need since someone else (me) addressed it the first time. I think you are the one making a big deal out of it.
I'm sorry, what? I responded briefly to Garren's post, and have answered you when you asked direct questions of me. please don't try to paint me as some zealot here for being willing to respond when you ask me things.

Mown wrote:
eh. That feels more like Garren being Garren, and I haven't even played a game with him. I can see the comment as unnecessary, but I see it more as a snide remark than some strawman argument or whatever, probably because I could be prone to do the same, since I find the proposition ridiculous.
why is it ridiculous? I know you're capable of basic math, so it's not that you don't recognize that a 3-person team you're on as town is four times more likely to be safe than one you're not on. so what's ridiculous about being cautious about teams you're not on?

Mown wrote:
Are you not capable of justifying your actions without telegraphing what you will do for the next five rounds? Votes carry more weight than words to me. If everyone is going around telling people how they will vote, you're more or less saying "this mission is going to go through, so you can safely reject it to look more favorable", "everyone else will reject it, if you accept it you will look scummy when it fails", "this mission is not going through if you help reject it", "the way you vote can make it seem like you are allied with certain people" or whatever other options are out there. Which is why I didn't want to state my agenda before the end of round 1.
if words don't matter why are you answering me? if the optimal strategy is victory through sheer vote analysis, what purpose does engaging in discussion have?

the answer is that vote analysis by itself is shoddy. for instance, let's look at day 1. Garren and I always voted yes. were we being yes-men? maybe. but note that either Garren or Neo was included on every one of the missions we voted yes for, so maybe we just wanted them. perhaps the scum team is Garren, Neo, and myself? or perhaps it's Garren and Neo, and I was just being a yes-man? or it could be me, Neo, and Zinger, and Garren was just tagging along. or it could not be Neo, and Garrenscum's votes could be for themself, Nik, and you. or maybe it's me, you, and Nik, and I just voted yes on 1.4 because I'd established a pattern and was stuck in it. all of those are valid theories, and the only way to parse them out is to examine how the involved people interact. we can wait until we have enough votes to really make something, but by that point we'll be buried, so we need to look at people. right now I see you leaping weirdly to Garren's defense, which helps cement my belief that it's the Garren-Mown-Nik trio, especially since Nik's nos on 1.2 and 1.3 were both defaults that they claim were accidents. Garren-Mown-Neo is also a possibility.

and yes I know that oh my god there's no way Mownscum would invite Garrenscum on a mission, but that's bull. as I've said so many times, the double-fail isn't a thing that can actually happen if people play anything close to intelligently, and here they'd even have options to bounce back from it thanks to the third spy and the scapegoat in Zinger. it'd be bad but it wouldn't be game-ending, and, again, it wouldn't actually happen.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:48 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
anyway I'd prefer Zinger over Neo but this team seems safe enough and if it fails that's a lot of information anyway so I'm voting yes here.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:15 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
razorborne wrote:
voting no is ruining a round's worth of information?

I'm not saying vote no to every team you're not on. I'm saying consider the fact that, when you are not on a team as town, the odds of it being spy-less go way down. that's a really important thing to remember, and jumping down Neo's throat for bringing it up is silly.

Maybe I am making assumptions, but NeoSilk's post to me looks a lot like "I am not on this mission -> Therefore the possibility of spies on it are too high -> Therefore I will vote no." I've never claimed that you have said so, but to me, it certainly looks like NeoSilk did.

razorborne wrote:
I didn't interpret Neo's post as a literal declaration that they wouldn't vote for any team they weren't on (although, again, Rubik made exactly that declaration day 1 and Garren didn't say anything.) just that, given their position, the team looked too likely to be scummy.

Based on the notion that he was not on it, and seemingly nothing else.

razorborne wrote:
I'm sorry, what? I responded briefly to Garren's post, and have answered you when you asked direct questions of me. please don't try to paint me as some zealot here for being willing to respond when you ask me things.

Garren responded briefly to NeoSilk's post. Please don't try to paint him as some kind of zealot here.

razorborne wrote:
why is it ridiculous? I know you're capable of basic math, so it's not that you don't recognize that a 3-person team you're on as town is four times more likely to be safe than one you're not on. so what's ridiculous about being cautious about teams you're not on?

I believe I've made that clear on numerous occasions as it is, but I will make clear that I am discussing the notion of "I am not on it, therefore I will reject it", since we appear to have a disconnect on that area. I am perfectly well aware that whether you are included on a mission or not is statistically significant.

razorborne wrote:
if words don't matter why are you answering me? if the optimal strategy is victory through sheer vote analysis, what purpose does engaging in discussion have?

Literally when did I ever say that?

razorborne wrote:
and yes I know that oh my god there's no way Mownscum would invite Garrenscum on a mission, but that's bull. as I've said so many times, the double-fail isn't a thing that can actually happen if people play anything close to intelligently, and here they'd even have options to bounce back from it thanks to the third spy and the scapegoat in Zinger. it'd be bad but it wouldn't be game-ending, and, again, it wouldn't actually happen.

I sure hope you wouldn't think so, since there's precedence for me doing it during our previous game. Of course, I rejected it myself and it was at a point where everyone hated me I believe, but the point remains.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:25 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Mown wrote:
razorborne wrote:
I didn't interpret Neo's post as a literal declaration that they wouldn't vote for any team they weren't on (although, again, Rubik made exactly that declaration day 1 and Garren didn't say anything.) just that, given their position, the team looked too likely to be scummy.

Based on the notion that he was not on it, and seemingly nothing else.
right. and with no sufficient mitigating factors indicating otherwise, that should be enough.

Mown wrote:
Garren responded briefly to NeoSilk's post. Please don't try to paint him as some kind of zealot here.
Garren blatantly overreacted to Neo's post, throwing up an absurd strawman. different scenario.

Mown wrote:
razorborne wrote:
if words don't matter why are you answering me? if the optimal strategy is victory through sheer vote analysis, what purpose does engaging in discussion have?

Literally when did I ever say that?
you're arguing that people shouldn't discuss their intentions, plans, and suspicions because it lets scum derive strategies. I'm not really sure what else you want us to discuss if those are off-limits.

Mown wrote:
I sure hope you wouldn't think so, since there's precedence for me doing it during our previous game. Of course, I rejected it myself and it was at a point where everyone hated me I believe, but the point remains.
well, if I recall correctly you didn't put yourself on that mission, which is different in that it still avoids double-fails, but fair point.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:03 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10665
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
razorborne wrote:
Mown wrote:
Based on the notion that he was not on it, and seemingly nothing else.
right. and with no sufficient mitigating factors indicating otherwise, that should be enough.

And I believe that doing so would delay the onset of sufficient mitigating factors.

razorborne wrote:
Mown wrote:
Garren responded briefly to NeoSilk's post. Please don't try to paint him as some kind of zealot here.
Garren blatantly overreacted to Neo's post, throwing up an absurd strawman. different scenario.

I still don't see it as all that, so I guess I'll have to treat it as a subjective thing unless Garren wants to elaborate on it (which I welcome you to.)

razorborne wrote:
you're arguing that people shouldn't discuss their intentions, plans, and suspicions because it lets scum derive strategies. I'm not really sure what else you want us to discuss if those are off-limits.

Wouldn't that be inherently hypocritical of me?
I am arguing that people shouldn't make the voting process for missions a solvable state for spies. This primarily concerns making blankets statements (in this game, "I will not vote for missions without me", which I also find appalling for other reasons), but I would also prefer if people didn't make their votes clear before they are submitted, unless you deem it important to vocally oppose or support it, for reasons more significant than "I find Mown slightly suspicious" (Especially since I can't remember you actually directly opposing the theory of my actions.)
razorborne wrote:
well, if I recall correctly you didn't put yourself on that mission, which is different in that it still avoids double-fails, but fair point.

Oh, right. I just assumed it was a Mown thing to do and looked for a precedent, without considering the possibility that I didn't invite myself, because why would I ever do that.

As an aside, I am curious. Since you seem pretty dead set on me and Garren being spies, what does the current proposal tell you if it fails? (And if you want it to be different, why not reject it, since you are next up?)

It's late, so I'm off to catch some sleep. I hope to see someone else than raz having said something when I wake up.

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:11 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 15603
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Mown wrote:
razorborne wrote:
Mown wrote:
Based on the notion that he was not on it, and seemingly nothing else.
right. and with no sufficient mitigating factors indicating otherwise, that should be enough.

And I believe that doing so would delay the onset of sufficient mitigating factors.
it's a little hard to take you at your word on that when you voted against all four day 1 proposals.

Mown wrote:
razorborne wrote:
you're arguing that people shouldn't discuss their intentions, plans, and suspicions because it lets scum derive strategies. I'm not really sure what else you want us to discuss if those are off-limits.

Wouldn't that be inherently hypocritical of me?
well, that was sort of my point.

Mown wrote:
I am arguing that people shouldn't make the voting process for missions a solvable state for spies. This primarily concerns making blankets statements (in this game, "I will not vote for missions without me", which I also find appalling for other reasons), but I would also prefer if people didn't make their votes clear before they are submitted, unless you deem it important to vocally oppose or support it, for reasons more significant than "I find Mown slightly suspicious" (Especially since I can't remember you actually directly opposing the theory of my actions.)
how do we discuss our suspicions without indicating our intentions? how do I say "I think Mown is scum" without saying that I'll probably vote no to teams with Mown on them? I agree that people shouldn't blanket-commit to not voting for teams they're not on, because that's short-sighted, but people should be discussing their votes, if for no other reason than it forces the spies to either discuss theirs or stand out by being the ones who don't. right now they have a huge amount of cover in that very few people have offered any reasoning for the actions beyond vague shruggery, which means that if the spies don't want to say they can just jump in line. it's an extension of the mafia Lynch All Lurkers philosophy: if you let people get away with lurking, scum will lurk. we can't lynch here, so we have to actively push contribution so that the scum can't hide.

Mown wrote:
As an aside, I am curious. Since you seem pretty dead set on me and Garren being spies, what does the current proposal tell you if it fails?
that it's Neo who's the third likely spy, or that my model was wrong and it's Rubik. hopefully the former, but we'll see how things shake down.

Mown wrote:
(And if you want it to be different, why not reject it, since you are next up?)
so that I get to use my nomination day 4. this is pretty close to what I want so why burn my nomination now when odds are on for this mission anyway?

Mown wrote:
I hope to see someone else than raz having said something when I wake up.
me too, but the way things are going I wouldn't bet on it.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

Mown wrote:
I'll never again complain about raz's criteria.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:17 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 5149
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Identity: Spider-Man
Preferred Pronoun Set: Wtf is a "Jabber address"?
So either mown is scum, or garren is scum, or they are both scum. Either way, I am down for a team that includes neither of them.

_________________
well played zinger


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:28 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30, 2013
Posts: 7305
Location: England
Mown wrote:
I still don't see it as all that, so I guess I'll have to treat it as a subjective thing unless Garren wants to elaborate on it (which I welcome you to.)


What is there to elaborate on? Neo makes a statement I find frankly silly, I call him out on it, Razor goes ballistic. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

_________________
Welcome! I'm Garren and I'll be your designated villain for the evening.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group