The main reason I wanted to scumhunt first was to compare the two options of scumhunting then revealing, or instanty revealing. Anything further on this?

Here's the final matrix, fingers crossed I didn't mess it up.

Order of pair picks:

1.trentonlf (post #26).
2. Hunter65536 (post #27).
3. HypersomniacLive (post #29) - one pair common with trentonlf (RWarehall + Hunter65536, one pair with Hunter65536 (drealmer7 + GammaEmerald).
4. RWarehall (post #38) - one pair common with trentonlf (HypersomniacLive + gogtrial34987).
5. adaliabooks (post #41)
6.gogtrial34987 (post #43) - one pair common with adaliabooks (trentonlf + Hunter65536).
7. drealmer7 (post #49) - one pair common with RWarehall (Lifthrasil + Hunter65536).
8. GammaEmerald (post #51).
9. Lifthrasil (post #58) - one pair common with trentonlf (RWarehall + Hunter65536).

We do have similar active hours, from my SHORT time with drealmerz in Flip Flop.

So, did you read all the stuff we posted? Do you have anything to say/add? Not sure if you noticed, but skipped RVS.



Really? From what I saw, you were reading his intentions and tactics just fine.



Impressed, to say the least.


Again, no arguments as to why you'd have preferred this. Or why you picked the ones you did.


*tries to remember who was it that said something about floaters early in the thread*



Since we haven't played together before - does this "play forward" style of yours include leaving questions unanswered once they've fallen off the last page?


Yes.

Does "main" mean that you had other reasons as well? Care to share them?

And I don't follow - this kind of sounds like you wanted to run an experiment. To compare, if I understand you correctly, how things played out in the game on mafiascum (instantly revealing) vs here (first scumhunting, then revealing)? What purpose would that even serve in this game, and how would it help town weed out the traitors among us?



trentonlf already gave his reasons in post #31.


I followed the link cristigale provided to get a feeling of the setup, and figure out how exactly the pre-game works. So, skimmed through the first couple of pages, or so. Then checked out the last couple of pages to see what the post-game feedback cristigale had mentioned was

I INTENDED to post a reply, but it's not going through so it will have to wait.

I didn't really feel the other questions needed answering. I'll answer your second question to me. I felt the one-half reveal would pin scum down while not allowing repeats to be as prevalent.
Thinking about it, it would have given more ability to fake repeats.

Unfortunately the overlapping picks don't seem to be much use, Hyper comes off most suspicious for having two duplicates while only being the third pick, but as there are more people who chose duplicate pairs than not I don't think it really says much about any of them.

Second part of the impossible post.
Main reason means what went through my head when I said it. I might have had other reasons but I can't remember them if I did. As for the purpose in this game, it would necessarily serve any purpose THIS game, but it would help with game theory for this setup.

Part of me feels unsettled by the fact Hyper put in explanations with his and he repeated people that came before him with both picks.

Yes. I noticed you all skipped RVS.

unvote drealmer7

...but I don't have any non-RVS suspect yet. Sure, duplicates in pair selection might be scum trying not to give us any more information than we already have. But statistics dictates that there will be some duplicates. So this is nothing strong. But the pairings made public is useful in one respect: As soon as we get one scum, all players that were in an excluded pairing with him are automatically certified town. So it will be very useful to find the second scum.

Oh, and in case anyone cares, I'm apparently Gobinda, though I'm not actually sure I know who that is....

That's ok, I have no clue who any of the henchmen are LOL

I recognise four definitely and maybe 5, but then it's been a long time since I've watched a Bond movie so that's probably no surprise.

Let me see if I got everything straight.

In a game setup where we, as town, need more than ever to work together to weed out scum, you, allegedly as town, chose to suggest something, not having town's best interest in mind but as an experiment to compare two different approaches to this setup because it would help with game theory for said setup.

You choose not to address questions we ask you, because you don't really feel they need to be answered. Again, working together seems to play little to no role for you.

You then go on to shed suspicion on me, trying to exploit the fact that my picks were repeats, and using against me the fact that I did the town thing and volunteered my thinking behind the choices I made. Because as town, the normal course would be to roll a die; absolutely no need to try and strategise a bit, or make the most possible out of this. Also, no need to get everyone on record early on as to why they made the choices they did.

What can I say, this totally rings like genuine town play, and in no way an attempt to achieve a D1 mislynch. Go on then, vote me. Or is it your thing to wait and work on getting others on board first? adaliabooks seems to be biting a bit.



What concerns you more? The repeats, the fact that I backed my picks with reasons, both? Here's a question for you - this is not our first game together, and you've seen me play as both town and scum. Do you think that as scum, and with day chat at my disposal, I'd reveal this early (third) and make both my pairs repeats of the two players that proceeded me? Do you think that I wouldn't have thought that out a bit better as to avoid getting under scrutiny this early on? Give me a little more credit than that.

I plan to post a vote count at least once every 24 hours from this point forward.

All is quiet on the western front:

Vote count
(nada)