The Deadzone

PostThe Deadzone by **Drumstick** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:24 pm

Welcome!

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:55 pm

It's lonely in here. I put a big red bullseye on my head clearly by being too practical.

My guesses for Grinches at this point:

Ironhide
Curls
Preezy
Memento Mori

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Drumstick** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:05 pm

Any reasoning for those or nothing other than good old gut feels?

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:21 pm

Ironhide - no useful contributions, abstained from voting, appeared out of nowhere when mentioned

Curls - vacuous 'I'm not paying attention' posts - baseline minimum activity

Preezy - voted Qikz at last minute - knew he couldn't get away with not voting. I suspect the wolves discussed trying to engineer a tie

Mori - abstained from voting and was dismissive of the value of voting

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:29 pm

also DML sus

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Parksey** » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:43 pm

Its never a good sign when you wake up on a morning and notice you can read this topic.

Thought I'd at least been killed by a vigilante. Not sure where the lynch vote came from as when I went to bed last night, everyone was just gooseberry fool posting.

Barely had time to engage with the game. It started at 5pm my time, was busy at work today and have an exam Sunday I'm cramming for, hoping I could at least survive four days. Had to get my daily four posts out before I forgot as I thought that was going to be my main source of danger.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Albert** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:11 am

Really don't like the Posting Quota rules. Just encourages people to Spam.

Still think Qikz is Grinchy

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Parksey** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:26 am

Yeah I'm not a fan either. Had a busy day yesterday and the thread was moving so fast, coupled with the traditional first day mud slinging, I just wanted to get my obligatory four posts out of the way so I wouldn't be at risk of dying. Ironic, as those four posts got me killed.

The thing is, inactives blight the villager cause, so having some impetus for them to post helps. Most are just villagers who are not engaged in the game or too busy (very very rarely do you have an inactive special), but suspicions on them waste the villagers' time.

Maybe reworking it in future might help. Not have immediate death be the outcome, and not have it be a post quota. Maybe a villager reward if everyone posts at least once in a day or a temporary drawback if someone is inactive for long periods of time.

It's a hard one to fix though without being too heavy handed.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Drumstick** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:38 am

The complaint of 'active' players being killed off, skewing the ratio of active to inactive players and thus leaving the game ripe for manipulation by the wolves is a very, very long-standing one, which is why this step of a quota has been taken. Parksey will remember DML's 'spaceship' version, where he was basically the last hope for the Human cause because by Day 5 or so all the other active players had been wiped out and player apathy then set in. A quota doesn't guarantee worthwhile context, but it does at least tell everyone that, despite some folks appearing inactive, they are actually paying attention to the game enough to make the bare minimum number of posts required to avoid culling.

The question then becomes; why is someone appearing to make the most minimal of efforts to seem active? Do they have something to hide? And is understanding the cause for their lack of activity in itself a legitimate reason for killing them in the day phase?

I can tell you right now that there is at least one special role in the lower echelon of the post counts from yesterday.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Drumstick** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:42 am

Also it's 8:42am and Moggy has already made 8 posts.

Curls 1
Frank 1
Kezzer 1
Ming 1
Qikz 1
That's not a growth 1
Vermilion 1
VlaSoul 1
BID0 2
Oblomov Boblomov 2
Pedz 2
Tsunade 2
aayl1 2
Pancake 3
PaperMacheMario 3
Tomous 3
Moggy 8

PostRe: The Deadzone by **OrangeRKN** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:37 am

Moggy was never in any danger from the post count cull :lol:

The spam posts (and double posts) just to reach the quota really hit the ground running. Just makes me think more that a vote requirement rather than a post requirement would work better, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out anyway! It's definitely better than no cull anyway.

The day 1 vote ended up pretty ok all things considered as it wasn't just a single wagon and was close run. There were still far too many no-votes (or abstains). The idea on day 1 voting, when there is nothing else to go on, should really be to have a contested vote between a handful of candidates. Then later in the game when mafia start getting found you can look back at the voting patterns, maybe even get lucky with one of the day 1 candidates being a mafia and seeing who voted for/against. Chances are you'll just hit village with the random picks but you have to play the odds.

They shouldn't get hung up on the day 1 votes now though and waste the early game. I'd be tempted to go scattergun again to get a contested vote but with a different candidate list as there isn't much else to go on.

I'm completely going to fall off spectating from tomorrow for about 4 days so it'll be interesting to come back and see what has happened!

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Albert** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:39 am

Hypes wrote:Albear obviously decided not to play. He posted at 11.29 so could have easily made the quota

Bit Harsh. I actually just hadn't realised I was under quota.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:08 pm

The value of minimum posting quotas will benefit the mid and late game more, when people are forced to not hide away and continue to engage.

Increasingly suspicious of Aaron today following the thread.

I really think the village would gain an edge by working together to self-organise a mayor function and have a split vote between 2 candidates. Can see the Grinches walking it otherwise.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **OrangeRKN** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:15 pm

I don't understand your reasoning Clarkman (or even how you propose it could work). There is no mayoral immunity. The lynch vote is from individuals - I'd very surprised if Drumstick allowed deferring your vote to another, which would be needed for a mayor to function. What possible benefits would electing a mayor bring?

No mayor makes voting simpler and more direct. There is no confusion of platform or hiding behind differing interpretations of a vote.

The disadvantage to the village of not having a mayor is the loss of mayoral immunity and nothing can be done about that. That everyone is directly voting to lynch is a good thing.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:25 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:I don't understand your reasoning Clarkman (or even how you propose it could work). There is no mayoral immunity. The lynch vote is from individuals - I'd very surprised if Drumstick allowed deferring your vote to another, which would be needed for a mayor to function. What possible benefits would electing a mayor bring?

No mayor makes voting simpler and more direct. There is no confusion of platform or hiding behind differing interpretations of a vote.

The disadvantage to the village of not having a mayor is the loss of mayoral immunity and nothing can be done about that. That everyone is directly voting to lynch is a good thing.

Not if those votes are spread across 6 or 7 candidates, as you'll never develop any leads to go on.

All the thread would need to do is collectively defer to one person to propose 2 candidates to choose between. They don't need to be mayor in title, just in function.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **OrangeRKN** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:50 pm

I don't get why you'd want to do that. Village should want votes to be contested, yes, but that isn't incompatible with having votes for a multitude of people. Restricting the candidates will also prevent the vote shifting throughout the day. What do you think the advantage of only ever voting to lynch between two people is? Why would votes for more prevent you from developing leads?

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:01 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:I don't get why you'd want to do that. Village should want votes to be contested, yes, but that isn't incompatible with having votes for a multitude of people. Restricting the candidates will also prevent the vote shifting throughout the day. What do you think the advantage of only ever voting to lynch between two people is? Why would votes for more prevent you from developing leads?

All substantial/meaningful leads develop from when the first wolf/grinch is hit. You can there work back through the list of those who voted to lynch the opposing single candidate. Having a Grinch up for lynch is the only thing that guarantees you pull a wolf out of hiding.

By having a larger spread of potential candidates to vote on, the masses make vote manipulation much less necessary, because it takes fewer votes to swing in the wolves favour.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **OrangeRKN** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:22 pm

Clarkman wrote:
OrangeRKN wrote:I don't get why you'd want to do that. Village should want votes to be contested, yes, but that isn't incompatible with having votes for a multitude of people. Restricting the candidates will also prevent the vote shifting throughout the day. What do you think the advantage of only ever voting to lynch between two people is? Why would votes for more prevent you from developing leads?

All substantial/meaningful leads develop from when the first wolf/grinch is hit. You can there work back through the list of those who voted to lynch the opposing single candidate. Having a Grinch up for lynch is the only thing that guarantees you pull a wolf out of hiding.

By having a larger spread of potential candidates to vote on, the masses make vote manipulation much less necessary, because it takes fewer votes to swing in the wolves favour.

The number of votes needed to swing a vote isn't down to the number of candidates, it's down to how closely contested the vote is. A 6-4 vote only needs 2 votes to swing it, while a 6-2-2 vote needs at least 3. A 5-3-2 vote is as easy to swing as a 6-4 vote.

By having a larger spread of potential candidates to vote on, the odds of a wolf being up for the vote are greater. Considering that the wolves don't care about swinging a vote unless its to save their own, that gives an opposing consideration - the more people being voted for, the more likely the wolves will be forced to intervene.

Once you hit a wolf as you say you want to look at past votes where they were up for lynch and see who voted for a different candidate. Whether that was all on a single candidate or across multiple isn't too important. In fact you might see wolves more clearly. Consider again the two candidate 6-4 vote against the three candidate 6-2-2. If the candidate with 6 votes is revealed to be a wolf when lynched, you know to look at the 4 people who voted the other way in either situation. In the two candidate situation the wolves have no option but to vote for the single opposing candidate. In the three candidate situation you might catch a wolf changing their opposing vote to make it 6-3-1 in an attempt to swing.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **Clarkman** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:00 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:Once you hit a wolf as you say you want to look at past votes where they were up for lynch and see who voted for a different candidate. Whether that was all on a single candidate or across multiple isn't too important.

Except it obviously is when you can only lynch one person a day. When it's all focused on one other single candidate, you know that you're certain to be hitting the concentrated focus of the wolves efforts to sway the vote in their interest. They simply can't sway anything if they're spreading their votes across multiple alternative nominees.

PostRe: The Deadzone by **OrangeRKN** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:07 pm

Clarkman wrote:
OrangeRKN wrote:Once you hit a wolf as you say you want to look at past votes where they were up for lynch and see who voted for a different candidate. Whether that was all on a single candidate or across multiple isn't too important.

Except it obviously is when you can only lynch one person a day. When it's all focused on one other single candidate, you know that you're certain to be hitting the concentrated focus of the wolves efforts to sway the vote in their interest. They simply can't sway anything if they're spreading their votes across multiple alternative nominees.

I honestly don't get what you're saying? If the vote is between candidate A or B and A is a wolf, the wolves will want to swing to B. If the vote is between A, B or C they will want to swing to B or C. Votes for B in the first situation are in a sense equivalent to votes for B or C in the second from the perspective of swinging away from A.

Tomous wrote:Poor TNAG. Either he has been screwed by an unfortunate avatar selection or he's made one of the all time biggest AYAW blunders

The Deadzone

Who is online

Affiliates