|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 5, 2012 1:39:27 GMT -5
By my records it stands at: Mahaloth (1): Inner Stickler Special Ed (2): Chronos, Meeko Chronos (2): Cookies, Peekercpa Peekercpa (1): Pizzaguy
I should probably remove my joke vote except that Maha hasn't really posted much yet anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 5, 2012 3:42:32 GMT -5
I don't follow this. Where is the connection between the two of them? I know some players like to think in pairs. But this one I have a problem seeing. Could you explain it to me a bit more? Scum don't like being overt in defense of their partners, so I have found that they will typically do one of the following: 1) Aggressive defense- attack someone else, with suspect timing. Build a new case so that it overshadows the other case and maybe draws more votes. 2) Not-a-defense defense- defend them by having no opinion and questioning others' opinions about them. It's pretending not to have an opinion by simply not showing strongly either way, but the tell is when the person argues that we should be changing our votes or behavior anyway, and for reasons such as "your votes lack reasoning". Okay, but it's day one. Sound reasoning is a pipe dream until I at least see everyone vote once or a townie ends up dead via murder. It's taking a principled stand where none is necessary, let's just vote for "I need to vote" reasons, and sort out the bullshit reasoning at a later date. Peeker is doing a number two, the "not a defense defense" and that's why I'm calling him out on potentially being full of shit. Will a townie do this? Yes, but it's bad form, and this is why. askthepizzaguy, believe it or not, but peeker is actually being a lot more clear and communicative in this game than his usual. I've played with peeker before. The fact that he's being clear and communicative with his wishy-washiness doesn't win him any brownie points with me. It just means it's easier than usual to understand his non-stance. ____Fancy-Ass_Thought_Separator____ I hail from boards where the day ends in 24 or 48 hours, and having played on boards where there's more time than that, I don't know what to do with myself. However, I have taken to pressure voting because I've got plenty of time to do that. More stuff to analyze later. Peeker's response to my vote+reason seems normal, for him. But I don't expect him to really freak out if he's scum over one whole vote. I do note that his response is that he hates the various bullshit reasons why folks vote for folks. My response is tough cookies. You'll get that a lot more on day one. The people who complain the loudest that the reasons for the case are wrong, are the ones who particularly hate that the case is still correct. Nothing burns my ass more than being correctly nailed as scum for non-reasons. At least point out where I was lying or made a stupid mistake. I'm on the look out for that kind of frustration, as it does indicate guilt. Townies should be familiar with getting voted for bullshit reasons, because when you're a townie, every reason you're getting votes is wrong. Suck it up n stuff. Strategy-related:It will be helpful for later analysis and also just for pressuring scum in general if people who aren't voting voted for some people who have no votes. With days this long, you can actually have a lengthy "nomination" process, where people endorse others for death. Gets people on record. Then we can discuss as a group which of the nominees really needs to die. I've been eager to try that in a game this size with the kind of time we have. I think it's potentially a game-winner but haven't had the chance to implement before now.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 5, 2012 3:52:03 GMT -5
Good luck. I bet most people will sit on their votes until 36 hours before the end of the Day.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 5, 2012 3:59:13 GMT -5
To explain that idea better-
If you're presently not voting, the only thing we have to judge you on is your contributions to the general discussion.
General discussion day one is unlikely to have much in it besides talk about the game setup and out-of-game concerns. There's nothing to analyze yet.
So how to sort out scums from towns this early, other than waiting for scum to murder people off: Get them on record with who they would feel comfortable forcing death upon, even if that name is literally a name out of a hat.
The reason being, several candidates being put forward for death increases the odds that (A) a townie nominates a scum, and (B) a scum nominates a townie, and (C) a scum nominates a scum.
Whereas if fewer candidates are put forth, the odds are rather big that you'll just see mostly townies voting for townies. Scum won't want to be the person doing the nomination of someone who flips townie so soon, because then that gets them the eyeball of suspicion. They also don't want to bandwagon, for fear of looking like a lazy scum who is bandwagoning. But if a dozen folks get away with nominating no one, so can they. There's nothing more advantageous to the scum than to have just a couple townies on the block, and a bunch of townies voting for said townies, and zero pressure on the scums who are saying nothing or voting no one. That means that even if we get lucky and they die, we have few of their posts containing any information worth reading.
If they have to press on someone for death, and they have to do it early, I'd love to see them try to distance themselves from their partners with votes. Increases the odds we get lucky. And if they have to go on record and vote a townie, that townie can go hey, you're voting for a townie, namely me.
Which puts that person on the radar of said townie. Even if it is just one townie, that townie isn't going to forget who made a mistaken vote for them. That's still inches better than having no scums on anyone's radar.
To force the scum into revealing their intentions, to force them into either distancing from their partners or showing that they really want X number of townies dead, we have to get them voting. And bandwagons, while useful for killing someone, are less useful for analysis.
Thus, nominate 10 people with your votes. Then bandwagon one of them.
That's more useful than not voting. Even if your reasons for voting are total shit, it's an improvement.
What is the impact on the discussion? More people being discussed.
What is the impact on the vote tally? More candidates being pushed closer to death.
What is the danger of reversing if we got lucky and a scum is already being accused? Well, the other candidates would have one vote apiece. That's not much different from being zero votes apiece.
Too many upsides. It should be done. Since you folks have played in oodles of games and have nothing but time on your hands in these forums, I am pretty sure the merit behind the suggestion will be obvious to most.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 5, 2012 4:00:57 GMT -5
Good luck. I bet most people will sit on their votes until 36 hours before the end of the Day. Habits are hard to break. If anyone wants to shake up the status quo with a new battle plan, I'll be in the kitchen baking a pizza.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Mar 5, 2012 4:12:55 GMT -5
@ Pizza, I do see the merit in what you say but I am a bit wary of just placing a random vote because, as you know, you do need some sort of a reason to vote. I have been killed off as Vanilla because I unvoted someone when I had a stronger case against someone else. At the moment not even all the players have arrived.
I need to stop over thinking everything and getting myself all twisted up in knots and still getting the answers wrong.
Vote Inner Stickler
For not taking his joke vote off Mahaloth
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Mar 5, 2012 4:42:00 GMT -5
I knew I'd forgotten something. The letter-not-handshaking-theory: I actually like it. And don't really see any drawbacks. Mostly because when I mod games I always provide scum with tons of fake Roles and will even write them new ones based on their wishes. It's because faking my way of writing would be almost impossible to someone with English as their native tongue. But being restricted with a line of letters like proposed would make the job a lot harder. Storyteller has a unique way of writing and so faking a Role in this game not written by him would be more than difficult. I'd say almost impossible. It's the mix of humour with fiction and color that's hard to match. He might have provided Scum with fake Roles - but if we make them have to choose one early in the game it will be harder for them to rationalise after the events when claiming. Let's say a Scum is on the line and have to claim. Let's say we have a watcher and they have been seen. Now the Scum can't claim to have been a doctor and trying to protect if every one they visited died the same Night. Or I guess they could - but it would make the claim so much harder to believe. So I am all for trying the share-your-letters-theory. Will it do us any good? Maybe. Will it hurt us? I don't really see how. We all agree that Town needs information and so on. My problem with this theory is that it confirms nothing. The first sentence of my own PM is pretty generic, and doesn't say anything about my character. So I could state, for example, the first line is XYZZY. That in no way prevents me or anyone else modifying the subsequent text to suit a subsequent claim. The only way that it has any value would be to post a checksum for the whole PM now -- such that what you have now cannot be modified. But that is seriously boring and no fun at all. I think an alignment investigator is more likely but I'm not prepared to state that equivocally whether one or both are in the game. Why? The conversation made me wonder. Would a PFK Batman claim his real name? And wouldn't an investigator learn "PFK" instead of "Batman" unless they are a name investigator. And this one makes me go hmm, Bruce Wayne was Batman, it seems somewhat oddly worded for Ed to say "his real name" rather than Bruce Wayne. But it does echo something in my own PM "Except now, he's back. Is it Wayne, again? Or someone else in the suit?"Which seems to open the possibility, that in this game, someone else is actually Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 5, 2012 5:08:03 GMT -5
Did Batman lose the first game and then die? It could be a continuity thing if so.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 5, 2012 7:53:41 GMT -5
Did Batman lose the first game and then die? It could be a continuity thing if so. Yes, Batman died.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 5, 2012 8:23:40 GMT -5
VOTE COUNT - OFFICIAL - MONDAY AM
Special Ed (2 votes) - Chronos (45), Meeko (46) Chronos (2 votes) - Cookies (47), peekercpa (87) Mahaloth (1 vote) - Inner Stickler (11) peekercpa (1 vote) - askthepizzaguy (115) Drain Bead (1 vote) - guiri (140) Inner Stickler (1 vote) - Silver Jan (185)
Day Ends - Thursday, March 8, @5:00PM EST
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Mar 5, 2012 8:43:32 GMT -5
I'm here - just catching up now.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 8:50:53 GMT -5
I read "real name" in claming to be Batman (real name) and not some strange fake Role-name like Ivan The Theif or what ever.
I guess you could read it like Bill did. Only I have to reread to see what makes the most (if any) sense to me.
As for voting early I don't disagree. But I can't just vote for the sake of voting. I don't like I-Have-To-Vote votes. I want there to be some reason behind my votes.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 8:55:16 GMT -5
My problem with this theory is that it confirms nothing. The first sentence of my own PM is pretty generic, and doesn't say anything about my character. So I could state, for example, the first line is XYZZY. That in no way prevents me or anyone else modifying the subsequent text to suit a subsequent claim. The only way that it has any value would be to post a checksum for the whole PM now -- such that what you have now cannot be modified. But that is seriously boring and no fun Since so many don't like the idea it's not going to happen anyway. Still as an idea I did like it
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 8:58:08 GMT -5
Vote Inner SticklerFor not taking his joke vote off Mahaloth Bleached for the StoryMod. Does this mean you will unvote when he does? Is it a "I don't like joke votes"-vote or was it based on him poiniting out he should unvote yet he didn't?
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Mar 5, 2012 8:58:45 GMT -5
I find that my posts of late take even longer than normal, and take on a life of their own. I think it works for me. Hopefully I am coherent here. I also have an OOG after all of it. I very well might. SNIPPED. *Edited to fix a type in the bolded word* and to annoy others. Maybe mostly to annoy others. Oh so dastardly noisy! Ed, I was frankly looking for an apology here. On the "it's not personal" level. Your binge didn't help town. I will get back to this in a second. My vote remains on you for being anti-town. An apology on the personal level. Meh. We have a history. Whatever. Please re-read the above paragraph. I'm unclear here, are you voting Ed for being anti-town or because you think he's suspicious also? It's reading like you're voting because you don't like the way he's playing rather than that you actually think this is how he'd play as scum.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 9:00:03 GMT -5
I should probably remove my joke vote except that Maha hasn't really posted much yet anyway. Does this mean your joke vote now is a lurker vote or was that a joke as well?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Mar 5, 2012 9:11:11 GMT -5
Sorry, folks, I've been reading along, but having a hard time organizing my thoughts. I'll go ahead and get on record as to how I play, or at least how I've played in the last few games. First, I really believe, whether I play as scum or town(never been 3rd party I think) that my best move is to just say what I think with little filter. Naturally, this has lead to me getting killed really early. Last game, I was scum and died Day One. Look up other games and you will see a pattern of me attracting votes early. Despite this, I really think it is better to just talk freely. So...I'll do so again. Like special ed, kind of, except I do filter out goofy nonsense(uh, no offense, ed).
Additionally, I tend to attract votes early because, I think, I also believe in voting early(on early Days, anyway). I'm more suspicious of those that wait for someone else to make a case and then hop on than those that vote early.
My early vote, this game, is going to Rysto. For the "vote for the vig target" idea. No, I don't think this is definitive proof of his scumminess. I just think it is the only early vote I can place right now. I'll change it later if a more substantial case arises, but for now, that's what I'm going with.
Vote Rysto
Real quick on the other cases.
Mahaloth: No case on me aside from the joke vote.
Ed: It's just ed goofing off, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he actually was more sensible in the last Doper game. I found him supportive of me(I was Town) and suspected him....correctly. It was Thrill of the Chase Mafia. I don't find him suspicious at all right now.
One sec. I have to leave for a moment. I'll return with thoughts on peeker and Chronos. I'm posting this so I don't lose it.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 9:14:00 GMT -5
I don't follow this. Where is the connection between the two of them? I know some players like to think in pairs. But this one I have a problem seeing. Could you explain it to me a bit more? Scum don't like being overt in defense of their partners, so I have found that they will typically do one of the following: 1) Aggressive defense- attack someone else, with suspect timing. Build a new case so that it overshadows the other case and maybe draws more votes. 2) Not-a-defense defense- defend them by having no opinion and questioning others' opinions about them. It's pretending not to have an opinion by simply not showing strongly either way, but the tell is when the person argues that we should be changing our votes or behavior anyway, and for reasons such as "your votes lack reasoning". Okay, but it's day one. Sound reasoning is a pipe dream until I at least see everyone vote once or a townie ends up dead via murder. It's taking a principled stand where none is necessary, let's just vote for "I need to vote" reasons, and sort out the bullshit reasoning at a later date. Peeker is doing a number two, the "not a defense defense" and that's why I'm calling him out on potentially being full of shit. But in this scenario you assume in both 1) and 2) that Ed is scum with Peeker. Or am I getting you wrong here?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 5, 2012 9:32:14 GMT -5
Does this mean your joke vote now is a lurker vote or was that a joke as well? It was a joke vote but when I was looking at the contents of various peoples' posts, I noticed that he only had 2: a fluff post and a quick comment on the game so I figured it could be an incentive to talk more. Except I don't really care for his vote on Rysto. I firmly believe that Bad Ideas are not scummy in and of themselves. So basically, Mahaloth is making me want to move my vote less and less.
|
|
|
Post by SBrOwn on Mar 5, 2012 9:44:08 GMT -5
Did Batman lose the first game and then die? It could be a continuity thing if so. Yes, Batman died. This might sound really dorky, and I swear I'm not this nerdy IRL- but I DO love the Batman comic books! That death scene sorta reads like the end of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns! Where it was Batman vs. Superman, and before the fight when Batman knows he has to fight Supes but isn't likely to win, he takes a pill that'll basically cause him to "die" like have a heart attack or something in an hour or so, and so in the middle of the fight after weakening and almost beating supes, he basically stages his own death so he can later escape and come back again in the future with his army..... That is an AWESOME ending right there for the comics, and it sorta echos in the death scene there- it gives Batman (Bruce) the out to possibly stage a comeback if there was ever a sequel, which there totally is now!! /fangirl squees Okay, back to the game: My thoughts right now- I think scathach sorta hits it for me. My initial suspicious were for Special Ed and Chronos, but I think 1. its because they're the ones talking the most. Granted SE has been posting a lot of weirdness so it's hard to read him.... -My initial vote would have gone that way- because it doesnt seem like a normal style, and it does bother me a lil' bit- especially since his posting is nearly double like the next guy. Which as Pollux mentioned could tie into the idea of a role that works with posting limits (Which doesnt seem like a Posting restriction, but more like a power that depends on how other people post). So that makes me leery, but then like 4-5 people have defended Special saying this is actually how he plays, and he can grate on people's nerves with this style. --So I feel less inclined to vote for Special because it does not seem like every scum would just stick up for special, that doesn't seem smart, and this seems like a smart board. So I feel like maybe my own squicky feelings on Special Ed might just be his style grating on me vs. him actually being scummy (bringing it back to Scat's point- would i be voting for him because he acts anti-town/bothers me vs. because i think he's scummy). So I think right now, I guess I'd FOS Special Ed? but not vote for him. As for Chronos- he's also got a similar situation, he sorta stood out, but it could be because he's posting a lot and he's also had several people defend this as being his "normal" behavior. And again, I feel like all those people defending him aren't all scummy, but just trying to help people like me out. -So I guess I'm still stuck trying to figure out what to do is the short of it. I would like to vote and put some data up there, but I don't think I have anything good to go on right now. I don't want to just fling votes, and I'd like more people to also talk- we do still have players who haven't shown up to the party just yet even. I think I need to re-read this thread or something, because I still am not sure what to make of all of this. Plus, you guys all keep referencing stuff that I have to keep going and looking up. (Watchers, toNights vs. nights (the explaination was nice though), Cabals- which i get is now apart of the last game, and things like that, the links to references ARE helpful though! And fun to read!). But I think I should still cast a vote for who I think is the Most Mafiosest so far for me, because I think votes and player thoughts are a good idea- the whole idea of waiting until there's 36 hours left just seems like a disaster to me. So I will vote in my next post to make things easier to read--->
|
|
|
Post by SBrOwn on Mar 5, 2012 9:50:09 GMT -5
Post #2 or 3 So Who I Vote For?So the only thing that's pinged me so far at least has been Silver Jan's vote of InnerStickler. She (You've) got 3 posts, first one (#60) is to give her 2 cents on the Vig, and to point out she's against Mass Claims. Second one is to talk to Chronos I was rather confused by Chronos' post too. We need to deal with Ed sooner rather than later but don't all vote for him. If you have a vote on Ed you obviously think he's scummy so why don't you want people to vote for him? At the moment I don't find Ed particularly scummy, that could change but right now I think he is just playing in his new style. -Which is an agreement that Ed "needs to be dealt with", but she doesn't find him scummy, so I'm not sure how she wishes to deal with Ed, unless it's a subtle hint to Vig. Then her Third Post (#185): She agrees with PizzaGuy, says she's against Random voting, and then places a vote on Inner Stickler. "For not taking his joke vote off Mahaloth"This all just sorta comes off as the same thing- You're voting basically against a Joke Vote, with a Joke vote of your own? Or are you saying his is a Random Vote, and yours in a Joke vote? Or do you really think that IS is scummy because of his making a random/Joke vote on Mahalot? I think I may be a bit conservative with my voting, but I like to vote for people if there is a decent bit of reasoning behind it. I guess of all the players who've pinged me the most, it'd be you, Jan. I think you've 1. Not really posted alot, and sort of been in the background by saying non-controversial things, but also being short and sweet about it, and (2) you're voting for a really not strong reason- which basically feels to me like you're voting either just for the sake of voting or for basically the same amount of reasoning that stickler has for voting Mahaloth. I don't see the difference in the two of you's votes, and so I'd like to Vote Silver Jan for the person who i think is the scummiest so far at about the halfway point in the Day for me- but I wouldn't mind hearing from you why you feel your vote for InnerStickler is not a random vote or why you think your vote is better off than his vote for Mahaloth. Of course, if a bunch of people come along and point out your vote is also just as much an inside joke vote and I've missed it, then i'm just going to feel like an idiot. (BTW did I do it right? Or did I need to make it it's own line?) Vote Silver Jan [/b] (to be safe)
|
|
|
Post by SBrOwn on Mar 5, 2012 9:50:42 GMT -5
NETA: I can't forget my bunnies!
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 5, 2012 9:54:06 GMT -5
It's more obvious if it's on it's own line and the moderators appreciate when we make if easy for them to do vote counts.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 5, 2012 10:06:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SBrOwn on Mar 5, 2012 10:29:18 GMT -5
( ) HOW DID YOU DO THAT?!?! I MUST KNOWS!
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 5, 2012 11:10:06 GMT -5
Ok, I like any good worker in corporate America, I spent the first 90 minutes of my workday catching up on this thread. Some of the points I'd have commented on have been discussed and tossed aside, but there's some still out there. The #1 thing that jumped out at me was Idle's post: ARE there vanilla in this game? I was under the impression everyone had some sort of power (I thought they did last game). I had the exact same thought. "Hmm, isn't this a no-vanilla game? Wait, the last Batman game was, but that doesn't mean this one is. I should ask. Wait, no, I most definitely should not ask. I should go look at the rules and find out for myself. Asking that publically would be pretty hinky-looking." What it comes down to for me is that Idle, you should know better. You've been playing the crap out of this game for years, and should know how a question like that is going to look. Vote Idle Thoughts(And yes, I'm fully aware that in explaining my reasoning for this vote, I've done the same thing that Idle did. Feel free to jump on that if you like.) God damn you, *I* wanted to say that! Please refrain from voting until I have time to make a substantive post. What an odd thing to say. But in case it works, yeah, I can I ask people to please refrain from voting for me until further notice as well?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 5, 2012 11:37:36 GMT -5
Hello all...I was following along sporadically over the weekend, but didn't have enough time to put together a useful post. Runniong down the votes so far... Inner Stickler votes mahaloth as a joke Chronos votes Special Ed for editing and 'making noise' Meeko votes Ed because he's making more noise than Chronos ComeToDarkSideWeHaveCookies votes Chronos for handshaking and making a baseless vote on Ed peekercpa votes Chronos for saying we should all vote for Ed but not pile on Askthepizzaguy votes peeker for being wishy-washy about Ed guiri votes Drain Bead for posting nothing but fluff Silver Jan votes Inner for not taking his joke vote off mahaloth mahaloth votes Rysto for the 'vote for the vig target' idea Hal Briston votes Idle Thoughts for 'letting slip' that he's non-Vamilla It seems like there's an awful lot of action centering in Special Ed. This doesn't surprise me one bit. personally, I think Ed is acting in a manner that's entirely typical for him of late, so it's a null tell at this point. A few posts that stood out to me: However, I find it hard to believe that Ed would just do this for no reason. I honestly can't believe that he's picked up two votes so far when he's literally begging for them. If he continues like this I'd be more than happy to see the Vig step in, but I have a feeling that he's got some kind of power that activates by being voted for, so let's not fall for this gambit yet. If he's still carrying on in a couple of Days and we don't seem to have Vig, then it makes sense to talk about lynching him. Yeah, I considered that possibility. But the way I see it, voting for him is still the right move, as long as we don't all pile on: If he's Scum or PFK with a power like that, well, we're going to have to deal with him eventually, might as well be now. If he's a Townie or a benign third party who intends to help Town, then voting for him is helping a friend out. And sure, we might have a Vig who can take care of him for us, but it's kind of a cop-out to avoid voting for someone who's acting scummy just to leave the problem to a vig we may or may not have who may or may not even be able to kill him. It's been mentioned by others, and Chronos has come back to exlain what he meant, but I still get an icky feeling from it. To explain that idea better- If you're presently not voting, the only thing we have to judge you on is your contributions to the general discussion. General discussion day one is unlikely to have much in it besides talk about the game setup and out-of-game concerns. There's nothing to analyze yet. So how to sort out scums from towns this early, other than waiting for scum to murder people off: Get them on record with who they would feel comfortable forcing death upon, even if that name is literally a name out of a hat. The reason being, several candidates being put forward for death increases the odds that (A) a townie nominates a scum, and (B) a scum nominates a townie, and (C) a scum nominates a scum. Whereas if fewer candidates are put forth, the odds are rather big that you'll just see mostly townies voting for townies. Scum won't want to be the person doing the nomination of someone who flips townie so soon, because then that gets them the eyeball of suspicion. They also don't want to bandwagon, for fear of looking like a lazy scum who is bandwagoning. But if a dozen folks get away with nominating no one, so can they. There's nothing more advantageous to the scum than to have just a couple townies on the block, and a bunch of townies voting for said townies, and zero pressure on the scums who are saying nothing or voting no one. That means that even if we get lucky and they die, we have few of their posts containing any information worth reading. If they have to press on someone for death, and they have to do it early, I'd love to see them try to distance themselves from their partners with votes. Increases the odds we get lucky. And if they have to go on record and vote a townie, that townie can go hey, you're voting for a townie, namely me. Which puts that person on the radar of said townie. Even if it is just one townie, that townie isn't going to forget who made a mistaken vote for them. That's still inches better than having no scums on anyone's radar. To force the scum into revealing their intentions, to force them into either distancing from their partners or showing that they really want X number of townies dead, we have to get them voting. And bandwagons, while useful for killing someone, are less useful for analysis. Thus, nominate 10 people with your votes. Then bandwagon one of them. That's more useful than not voting. Even if your reasons for voting are total shit, it's an improvement. What is the impact on the discussion? More people being discussed. What is the impact on the vote tally? More candidates being pushed closer to death. What is the danger of reversing if we got lucky and a scum is already being accused? Well, the other candidates would have one vote apiece. That's not much different from being zero votes apiece. Too many upsides. It should be done. Since you folks have played in oodles of games and have nothing but time on your hands in these forums, I am pretty sure the merit behind the suggestion will be obvious to most. I really hate these 'let's all post a list of our X most suspicious players, so that we can all rank them and come up with a consensus vote' ideas. We are not selecting Rookie of the Year here. We don't do '5 points for First Place, 3 points for Second...'. This generates content for the purpose of generating content. More posting does not necessarily lead to better posting. It only exacerbates the already-present problem of 'lynching the loud'. @ Chronos : It just seems like you are trying anything and everything to, as you put it, make noise. A lot of noise, and no signal. I can't shake the notion that you are just trying to buy time with the short list of Day 1 topics, thrown in all together at once. To that end, even commenting on why a handshake is bad, is bad. You say it's not really a handshake. I'm not sure what it is then. It's still a tail, even if you call it a leg. Chronos : In short, I think you are making noise.
Which is a moot point given what Ed is doing. Vote Spec. EdAt least it's not random Wiki articles. I would like an explanation Ed.
Vote Early, Vote Often. Unless Ed has set us up the bomb, and all our mafia play are belong to him ? Then again, is posting drunk Pro-Town? Talk about a "WIFOM" moment. ------- Pollux Oil : While I did go for the meme, I was seriously asking if Ed is a Bomb type character. That is, one that can do something on those that voted for him. A power that lets someone kill based on post count? Some people have all the luck. But no, I think Ed is simply drunk. I think. I hope. Snipped And SBrOwn, whether you trust me personally or not is your own business. I could be Town suggesting that because I think it's a good idea, or I could be Scum suggesting it because I think it looks like something a Townie might do. I am in fact Town, but I have no way of proving that, so I don't expect you to take my word for that. [/size] But then, even if I were Scum, it might still be a good idea-- Evaluate the idea on its own merits. Snipped [/quote] Bolded and ""embiggened"" [You guys don't know how hard it is for me to resist a "Holy X Batman!" comment here.] So, Chronos is already claiming alignment. A tough nut to crack, this. I still think that Chronos is making noise here, un-provoked comments and what not. He made the comment that he wouldn't use his vote analysis program [That IIRC, at one iteration, calculated Noise to signal] which in hindsight [and which Chronos offers self admittedly] is ITSELF is only noise --- but I don't think the replacement is that much better. Has there ever been a case where a player was so-over eager to prove townliness and they were telling the truth? [Wait a second... Ok, take Meeko out of that equation, and ask again.] Then again, Could the ditching of the vote analysis program be a zugzwang for the anti-town Chronos? Would he ditch it, to gain town cred, then conclude that he actually needed the noise that the program it, itself provided? If scum thought to stall game play .... what are they seeking to achieve? Is it in and of itself enough, or does town need to actively comment among the stalling topics? [/quote] Meeko points out that Chronos is 'making noise' just as much as Ed, but votes for Ed because he was 'asking for it'. But he thinks Ed was really just drunk. In the last post here he all but says Chronos must be Scum, but he's still voting Ed...apparently for no other reason than posting drunk. A couple other items of note: Inner votes mahaloth as a joke. Then Inner keeps his vote because maha is not posting much. then Inner heeps his vote there because he doesn't like maha's vote on Rysto. In between he makes a lot of posts, but they are almost all about general game strategy, previous games, role distribution, etc. He doesn't seem to have taken much notice of anyone in the game at all with the exception of mahaloth And this last may be purely subjective, but it seems that BillMc is being more talkative early than is normal for him. True, he only has 4 posts so far, so 'more talkative' is definitely relative here, but it's been enough that it stood out in my mind. Based on all of the above, vote Meeko It could just be a 'Meeko vs. Ed' thing. Or it could be a vote for Ed because he can always explain it away as a 'Meeko vs. Ed thing'. In either case, it's a bad vote that isn;t supported by his own posts.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Mar 5, 2012 12:21:14 GMT -5
I haven't read anything posted in-game, since you all started on the weekend. I'll post now and then catch up.
Just got my role PM:
Since I'm not a threat to anyone else's win (and lynching me is a mislynch since it increases scum's control of the vote), I see no reason not to simply claim right at the beginning. I'll vote pro-town, except that I will move my final vote to the lynchee by the end of the Day. I'll use my powers in a pro-town manner. I will not accept direction (it makes it too easy for others to manipulate or counteract), but will report each Morning what I did the previous Night.
Now to catch up on the game...
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 5, 2012 12:24:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Pleo! It's so comforting to know that the Town has you on its side! We of course trust you implicitly, and are certain that you would never go back on your word, and understand that there's no possibility that you are begin anything other than 100% honest with us.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Mar 5, 2012 12:33:32 GMT -5
Vote Inner SticklerFor not taking his joke vote off Mahaloth Bleached for the StoryMod. Does this mean you will unvote when he does? Is it a "I don't like joke votes"-vote or was it based on him poiniting out he should unvote yet he didn't? I think it's a bit of both, I don't really like joke votes and I don't see why he kept his vote on Mahaloth if it was only a joke but then again it could be something more. I began to wonder if Inner knew that Mahaloth was Town in this game. I have plenty of time to change my vote if I want to.
|
|