|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 12:40:53 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 3, 2009 12:40:53 GMT -5
Sorry for the mega post, but it's easiest for me to catch up by replying as I read. Yes, I do mean Post 61. And it's not that hard to understand. I'm not referring to direct actions, I'm referring to tone. The tone of post 61 had a very grandstanding, look-at-me-I'm-town sound to it. I don't like to meta-game, but you have played with me before, right? ;D There are currently about 17 players who might end the Day without a vote. I am not one of them. That is the point. I could have done the same thing by throwing out a random vote, but I thought putting it on myself would make it clear it's not a serious vote. The problem I have with the "vote for yourseflf" technique is that, more than anything, it's suicidal. I won't say I'd never vote for myself, but it would take something like the Sister Coyote problem to make me do so. (She was a Remorseful Vig who killed a Townie. She made the mistake of confessing this. The Mafia had a redirector. Result : One bonus kill per Night for the Mafia. We had to lynch her instead of an exposed liar. Who, when we finally did string him up, turned out to be Mafia). Voting for oneself, in this game, is anti whatever-faction-one-has. It's just bad play. Yes, doing so guarantees that you 1 will finish the Day with a vote. Suppose that, for some freak reason, you want to abstain Today? You can't. I'd rather retain my freedom of action. It's not likely to delay my vote very much anyway - I habitually vote late, and after much thought. I can't vote over the weekend (it's a D&D weekend) so don't expect my vote until Tuesday, and at least another full read. 1The generic "you." It's only suicidal if you end with a vote on yourself. The only reason I will ever end a Day without a vote on the most suspicious player is if I cannot vote at all. Your voting style in particular is one I find unhelpful to the Town. Why abstain to the end? Votes don't lose potency when given early. Waiting gives everyone else less time to figure out what you think. i didn't parse it at all like you did. i took it more along the lines of: "hey, i ain't god/king/obama/cheney so you folks do whatever". Anyone else get the image of a giant sandworm with the head of Obama and the body of Cheney. Gross! Well, looks like Day one is drawing to an end. And as I am still vote leader, I will make good of my soft claim. I am Spike, Passenger and Vote Switcher. I will prove my power by activating it. You obviously have no way of knowing that I'm not a scum vote switcher, so you will have to lynch me eventually, which is what I said earlier. vote chucaravote BillMc(Above needed to activate ability) will votes that are active at Night have any impact on the gameplay? [/color][/quote] No comment. [/quote] The poor public vote record, plus Chucara's claimed power, plus this answer makes me expect vote shenanigans. This means we need to be mindful of unexpected side effects of our votes, while still voting to lynch suspicious players. I think we need to go back and see who was advocating cautious voting before we had this information. That would be a good case for a perfect information slip. That is very powerful in Scum hands. I'd be willing to revisit the issue as we learn more about the setup, but for now I consider it more likely that this power, if it exists in this game, would be given to a Townie. Accordingly, assuming Chucara's power works as demonstrated, I would consider him a very poor choice for a lynch toDay, and will vote to avoid it if I can. I agree that scum vote manipulation is very powerful in their hands, but I'm not willing to hypothesis which side Chucara is on based on it without knowing more about what power roles are out there. I also agree that it's probably not wise to lynch Chu ToDay and wait until we know more. The thing is, the power isn't that useful in the town's possession--anyone we're suspicious enough to vote change, we should be lynching. So ultimately it'll be better to lynch him, since the loss of a towny Chu will have minimal cost, while the existence of a scummy Chu is very risky. While I'm not satisfied with my Chucara vote right now, no one else is really standing out as being scummy. His claim is confirmed, but not lying does not necessarily mean not scum. Also, I'm disagreeing with the cases against pedescribe, it looks to me like he was providing insight into what his read on the situation was and how he was making his voting decision. On top of that, I'm not really happy contributing to the lynch of someone who it is possible to confirm as town. So I think that I will eat dinner, watch some TV, and get a full fresh read on the situation. And probably change my vote if I see anything differently than I'm seeing it now. Who are you referring to as "someone who it is possible to confirm as town"? Chucara is the only one who's claimed a power and it doesn't lend itself to confirmation. I thought about letting this lie, since the discussion's moved on quite a bit, but I didn't want Pleo to think I was ignoring it. This statement is wrong and slightly suspicious. I freely admit that I may be letting an incident in my most recent (and still ongoing, yes, but the player in questions has already been mod-revealed) Mafia game color my perception. Since you stated that the statement is wrong and not just that you disagree with it, do you have stats to prove it? I will point out though, that, per The Rules, scum may post on the scumboard both Day and Night, and I find it extremely unlikely that the lack of unvoting didn't rate some discussion there. If I thought Idle was faking his misunderstanding, it might be a different story, but I don't think that he is. Oops, I didn't write clearly there. The part of your statement I was objecting to was that we could infer that Idle is more likely to be town, based on his skimming of the rules discussion. I agree with you that it is not a scum slip, but I would not reverse it to say it's an indication of towniness. However I might get on a BillMC train if it starts up since he, out of them all, seems to have said the most shady things and made the most vast and ugly assuptions throughout the whole thing. I'm also fine with a Natlaw train, as most may already know. And, so far, from all my observations today....redskeezix strikes me not only as scum but very obvious scum. Like, a person who has never been scum before and doesn't know how to play it and, therefore, is lousy at hiding it/covering it up. In post number 39, he makes a very wishy-washy type post that I've known scum to do (and made myself when I was scum). The whole "I'm not voting right now, but I'm just going to sow the seeds of doubt. It COULD be this..but it COULD be that too...in short, nobody should trust anybody..yeah! Yeah, that's it..." type of post. It really tripped my meter then, but I didn't say anything about it at the time. Can you quote specific examples of Bill's suspicious statements? That is a good observation about redskeezix's post. Waffling is a classic scum tell, especially newbie scum. However, newbie townies sometimes do similar things to avoid being lynched (since they haven't lost their fear of the lynch yet). I'm unfamiliar with red. Are they a new player? I'm the Passenger Vigilante. The interesting thing about my PM, is that it says I'll find out in the morning whether I was successful, and what the role of the person I've killed was - which kinda leads me to believe that there may be a janitor about, or some other obfuscation/delay of death info. Are you required to target a player each Night, or may you choose not to?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 12:46:42 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 12:46:42 GMT -5
Who are you referring to as "someone who it is possible to confirm as town"? Chucara is the only one who's claimed a power and it doesn't lend itself to confirmation. At that time, Chucara was the only claimed power. Of course, now we have to take Bill's Vig claim into consideration, as I note you did at the end of your post. And that's a very good question.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 13:48:13 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 3, 2009 13:48:13 GMT -5
Chucara, do you actually think BillMc is a Mafiate? - If you do, why are you not placing your own vote on Bill?
- If you do not, why did you force Bil to vote for himself, instead of a person you did think was a Mafiate?
You look like you're trying to have the best of both worlds. I realize it looks like that. I was hoping to get information in case BillMc turns out to be scum. I'm not really sure what to think of his claim. However, I doubt that in a 20 person game there'd be two scum kills. So I'm willing to give BillMc the benefit of the doubt. Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. nphase: I'm sorry, but you're just talking semantics there. I really don't understand where you see scum motivation. The way I see it the arguments for me being scum have been: He talks suspiciously (which is a pretty vague term considering English is my second language) or he cast a vote without a proper reason. It's day one, has any of the votes seriously been that well reasoned? Again, my playing style is not that deliberate. I don't think all that much about my actions, especially on day one. And this isn't the first time I've gotten into trouble for it. It's just really annoying when you're trying to do something for the benefit of the town and get voted for it. *shrug* Back on track.. My problem is that I don't really have any good ideas on who to vote for. I do however agree with Kat! that Steve looks mighty lurky. (lurky isn't necessarily scummy) Now, I'll place my vote on Steve/Sinjin for now as I am apparently still a target for some. I will do a complete reread tonight, and either come up with another target or a better formulated reason than "Me too". vote: Steve
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 13:51:50 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 13:51:50 GMT -5
Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. not on the off chance that Scum has a redirector or a bus driver. It also helps Scum in knowing one person not to target that Night
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 14:00:40 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 14:00:40 GMT -5
Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. No. Absolutely not. We don't know if Bill's a mandatory or remorseful vig, either, and just on the off chance that Scum does have a redirector or bus driver, it's better for Town not to know what flavor of vig he is, nor who (or if!) he's planning to kill.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 14:06:10 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 3, 2009 14:06:10 GMT -5
Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. Nooooooooooo! Bill shouldn't even declare whether or not he will kill, if he is voluntary, and certainly not who he plans to kill. His kill should not be subject to Town fiat, either. If he is indeed a Town-aligned Vigilante, he should do what he wants and not discuss it. In my very first game, the Town uncovered the Vig and was suspicious of him, so they "leashed" him - compelled him to kill as he was told on pain of lynching. To say that this was the best thing ever from the standpoint of the Scum (I was among them) would be understating the point. Anyway... If BillMc is lying, his is an audacious lie. If he's lying and is either Scum or a SK-type, then there is a strong possibility that: (1) there is a real Vigilante in the mix; and (2) that the real Vigilante will take care of BillMc for us. There may not be a Vig, but in a large closed game where there definitely might be, a Day One false claim of Vig would be extremely dangerous. As with Chucara, I thus consider Bill's claim more likely than not to be true. ---------------------------------- Responding next to Pleonast: Why not? Hypotheses can always be changed. But for toDay, we know this: 1. He clearly has a vote manipulation power - again, not just a vote charge, but a vote switch. As noted, this is exceedingly powerful in the hands of Scum. 2. Based on Bill's claim, and assuming he is being truthful (and I temporarily am at this point), we may well have a no-card-flip or delayed-card-flip scenario here, which is assuredly an anti-Town mechanism. Combining these two facts, what (little) we know of the balance of the game suggests Chucara is more likely Town than Scum. Later facts may change this equation, but we have to play the percentages and lynching a claimed pro-Town power role that according to what we currently know is more likely to be telling the truth than lying is just not good game play. Fortunately, you agree with me. ;D Partially disagree. Chucara, if truthful, does have the potential to be a very useful tool at the very end-game, should he survive that far. Think about the implications of his power in a three-handed situation, for example. The Scum will have to consider this, because if it comes down to Chucara, one Scum, and a Townie that Chucara trusts for whatever reason, that's game over. They may well need to kill him themselves at some point. I will conclude only that we should not lynch Chucara toDay, and that those who are continuing to advocate this course of action are making a mistake; I draw no conclusions about what we should do tomorrow or what we will or won't have to do eventually. ----------------- quoting nphaseStrongly dislike this post, which ends with a vote for Chucara. Having trouble articulating why, but it goes something like this - the post begins with a sentence that says, essentially, "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum," and ends with a vote that says, "I think Chucara is more likely to be Scum than any other player in the game." There's an army of words in between, attempting to justify the transition, but it's a transition that can't really be justified. "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum but let's lynch him anyway" sounds like cover for "Holy shit, we might be able to get these suckers to lynch one of their power roles even knowing he's probably one of their power roles!" vote nphase
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 14:12:58 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 3, 2009 14:12:58 GMT -5
Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. No. Absolutely not. We don't know if Bill's a mandatory or remorseful vig, either, and just on the off chance that Scum does have a redirector or bus driver, it's better for Town not to know what flavor of vig he is, nor who (or if!) he's planning to kill. Bill should keep his potential target to himself, but we absolutely do need to know (sooner or later) if he's a mandatory Vig or not. An optional Vig is useful to the town. A mandatory one is borderline; there's good arguments on either side if it's a slight positive or slight negative. If Bill claims optional Vig, I'd argue strongly against lynching him. A falsely claiming Vig is likely to be killed be the real Vig (unless the moderator is having fun with multiple roles ). And having a pro-Town Night kill in our pocket, to be used only when we need it is very useful. If Bill claims mandatory Vig, we'll have to have a discussion. I tend to favor letting a pro-Town Vig do their thing. In the early game the Town has numbers and a Vig let's us directly turn numbers into info. And in the late game, the Vig can reduce the unknown pool faster. While I'd be against lynching Bill in this case, I wouldn't hold it against those who think otherwise (unlike the optional Vig case).
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 14:31:13 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 14:31:13 GMT -5
Bill's a smart player. Even if he is an optional (town) vig, I'd expect him to be doing a fair amount of killing early on, so the difference in the early game may well be down to semantics. I don't see any point in pressing him on this issue.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 14:50:12 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 14:50:12 GMT -5
quoting nphaseStrongly dislike this post, which ends with a vote for Chucara. Having trouble articulating why, but it goes something like this - the post begins with a sentence that says, essentially, "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum," and ends with a vote that says, "I think Chucara is more likely to be Scum than any other player in the game." There's an army of words in between, attempting to justify the transition, but it's a transition that can't really be justified. "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum but let's lynch him anyway" sounds like cover for "Holy shit, we might be able to get these suckers to lynch one of their power roles even knowing he's probably one of their power roles!" vote nphase The role in isolation is more likely Town then Scum, but Chucara personally is reading more Scum than Town, and that overweighs it for me. I did mention I'd changed my mind about half a dozen times during the course of writing that and no doubt it shows, but I still don't think the logic should be all that elusive. I don't buy your end-game scenario either. Town can't afford to let an unconfirmed politician live to that point; if we do and we've guessed wrong, we've already lost. Unless we can first confirm him, we'll always have to kill Chucara before Scum is forced to do so. Are you still suspicious of pedescribe? @ Chucara -- it's not a matter of semantics or lack of reason for a day one vote; it's a reason that seems to contradict itself. It doesn't feel sincere. Whatever their other faults, Town are usually sincere.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 15:03:00 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 3, 2009 15:03:00 GMT -5
The role and the player are inseperable in this case. Chucara is his role. If his role is unlikely to be Scum, he is unlikely to be Scum.
Disagree. One of the great things about this game is that there are no absolutes. The game develops in a lot of very strange ways. We don't know what will happen over the course of the Days to come. Chucara may be revealed as a liar. Some other event may reveal that he is Town. Stating toDay that we must kill Chucara at some point is simply false; we can't possibly know that yet.
Yes, and of redskeezix, too, but both of those are based on gut impressions and I haven't had time yet to look more closely at either. I will before the end of the Day, though.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 15:14:44 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 3, 2009 15:14:44 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: BillMc Lynch.
BillMc (4) pedescribe (3) Chucara (3) Idle Thoughts (1) Natlaw (1) Guy Incognito (1) Steve (1) nphase (1)
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 15:51:19 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 15:51:19 GMT -5
Looking at our lynch leader, who is a claimed passenger:
Votes
Chucara (D1.109) If I'm not mistaken, this is a "third vote rule" vote. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what Chucara was saying. Pedescribe (D1.163) Because both Chucara and Bill are scummy, but Chucara is ahead in the lynch race. BillMc (D1.169) This is actually Chucara forcing Bill to make a self-vote using his power. Shaggy (D1.202) Because he believes Bill was twisting Chucara's words. Kat! (D1.229) Also votes Bill for word-twisting
Bill claimed Passenger Vigilante in D1.232
Of the four active votes on him: He can't change his own due to Chucara's power (theoretically). Pedescribe has been back in the thread (D1.239, answering STEVE (sinjin)'s question about Rapier)
And Shaggy and Kat! haven't been back online as far as I can tell since Bill claimed. So I'm not willing to draw any conclusions at this point.
That said, I'm going to go grab some lunch, because Food is Good, and I'll be back in a little while with a look at Kat! and Shaggy.
Probably.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 15:54:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 15:54:08 GMT -5
I really, really hate being compelled to defend a point of view I'm only about 51% for in the first place, you know? I can't help myself, though. The role and the player are inseperable in this case. Chucara is his role. If his role is unlikely to be Scum, he is unlikely to be Scum. By the same exact token, the role is not separable from the person. If the person is Scum, so must the role be, however unlikely based on our extremely limited view of the game conditions. I read Chucara as Scum today, stronger than anyone else, and that's really the bottom line. If his claimed role was self-confirmable (as to alignment), that would be one thing, but it isn't. If it was likely to be usable along the line to gain further clues as to alignment (as for example is the case with Bill's claim), that would be another, but that isn't the case either. If the role were more dangerous in Town's hands than in Scum's, that would be another reason to hesitate, but that isn't the case either. All I have to weigh against my suspicion is a feeling that, all else being equal, the role is more likely to belong to Town than to Scum. All else isn't equal. It's a closed game. That doesn't tip the balance for me.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 15:59:24 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 3, 2009 15:59:24 GMT -5
First of all, point absolutely taken about BillMc. I didn't consider a redirector or busdriver (I don't recall what a bus driver is). I've finished my reread, and here's what I've noted about people: (In order of appearance) peekercpa: Seems less talkative than I remember him. Might be a scum tell, but it's been too long since I played to be sure. pedescribe: Has been quite active, but some of his reasonings don't fly well with me. BillMc: If it hadn’t been for his claim this is where the vote will be. He jumped on my bandwagon at a critical point and appears to be stretching my statements for reasons. (#108) Nphase: Also pushing my case, before and after claiming. What I *really* don’t like is this: Bill's a smart player. Even if he is an optional (town) vig, I'd expect him to be doing a fair amount of killing early on, so the difference in the early game may well be down to semantics. I don't see any point in pressing him on this issue. Above is after I said that his reasons for voting for me is semantics. Are you actually saying that BillMc should target me? And is BillMc a scum killer that can only target someone with a vote? That prospect kinda scares me. It might be a stretch, but I *really* don’t like what you’ve getting at. Pedescribe: Voted BillMc when he could’ve rather easily joined the wagon on me. (#163) If he was scum that seems illogical. We will know more when we know the alignment of BillMc. Obviously, there could be other reasons. Steve: To me, appears to twist my words (#166), but so has many others, and they can’t all be scum. Maybe I’m just not very clear. I think Kat! has valid point, but the more I think of it, I can't peg Kat! as town so maybe just jumping that case isn't a good idea. Storyteller: Consistently seems town to me. However, he was one of the first to hint that I was town. Again a strange move if he was scum. Dirx: I have suspiciously little on him/her. Sister Coyote: Weak townie feeling there. Pleonast: Just confused here. So, it's between BillMc (who has claimed), Steve/Sinjin, and nphase. Short of an explanation of the quote above, my vote without a doubt goes to nphase. Once again, not OMGUS, but I really can't see any logic in you wanting me dead that bad. vote: nphaseFinally, I consider anyone who hasn't cast a vote yet or declared not to supicious. Not voting is very anti-town IMO.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:09:51 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 16:09:51 GMT -5
Nphase: Also pushing my case, before and after claiming. What I *really* don’t like is this: Bill's a smart player. Even if he is an optional (town) vig, I'd expect him to be doing a fair amount of killing early on, so the difference in the early game may well be down to semantics. I don't see any point in pressing him on this issue. Above is after I said that his reasons for voting for me is semantics. Are you actually saying that BillMc should target me? And is BillMc a scum killer that can only target someone with a vote? That prospect kinda scares me. It might be a stretch, but I *really* don’t like what you’ve getting at. That's because I'm not getting at it. Holy mischaracterization, I don't think I've ever seen it that bad. I don't even know what to say.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:15:02 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 3, 2009 16:15:02 GMT -5
On BillMc's vigilante claim: First off, I'm for a vigilante not to start killing right of the bat - it does provide information now, but that information would be come available anyway and time to gather other information (vote record, investigations) is reduced. Late game a vigilante becomes more powerful as kill are based on more information (avoiding claimed roles, taking lynch reveal info into account, etc).
A twist is added by the claimed role-reveal-of-target, which would give extra information if it isn't normally revealed (delayed or not at all). Assuming there are other ways to get the role info of the dead, that could be claimed power confirmable. A scum/SK can also claim vigilante and prove it through actions though (if only one kill can always claim abstain). Since we can discuss strategy at Night, this can be alleviated a bit by BillMc announcing his target just before Dawn.
A scum claiming vigilante risks getting killed by a real one, so that's in favor of not lynching him right away.
All in all, that leaves me in favor of not lynching BillMc or Chucara Today. If BillMc's claim doesn't hold up, or there is evidence of redirection or compulsory and he does survive it's definitely something to come back on.
pedescribe is the next runner-up. I don't see the flip-flop as Sister Coyote puts as scummy, but his tactical vote could definitely be scum motivated. Recap: not pushing Chucara since his soft-claim might derail it anyway and pushing the BillMc wagon at the point pedescribe was the runner up. As said before the 'wagons' are a bit weak though, since the votes total were only three or two votes.
nphase is being noted for 'a smart vigilante does a fair amount of killing'. Which reminds me of another reason a vigilante shouldn't kill Night One: there is no indication yet how many other killers are out there - a SK or as Pleonast mentioned another vigilante or a scum bonus kill, etc. Waking up with a lot of deaths is not good and thus not worth the information gain in my opinion.
My vote is still on Idle at the moment for his anti-town responses to my questions (imo again), but I think I'll move my vote to prevent a Chucara or BillMc lynch after a recheck of the people not mentioned.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:17:46 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 3, 2009 16:17:46 GMT -5
That's because I'm not getting at it. Holy mischaracterization, I don't think I've ever seen it that bad. I don't even know what to say. So you can't at all see why you using "might be down to semantics" in the same sentence as talking about the vig should kill "a fair amount" might at all seem supicious to me, yet you gladly vote for me because of what seems (to me) like a gut feeling despite evidence of my being a possible town power role. The only thing that makes me not think you're scum is that not even scum would push it that far.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:22:39 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 3, 2009 16:22:39 GMT -5
Storyteller: Consistently seems town to me. However, he was one of the first to hint that I was town. Again a strange move if he was scum. No, a scum wants to appear town so it isn't a strange move. I hammered the scum godfather lynch as scum which gained me quite some town credit (although it fell apart since we failed to kill the investigator who was double protected so I doomed myself with it). And the corollary that town will do anti-town things (which does not mean anti-town things should be encourage since that would allow scum to do it too). That's because I'm not getting at it. Holy mischaracterization, I don't think I've ever seen it that bad. I don't even know what to say. Since I'm added my last paragraph seeing Chucara's vote on preview, please try to say it? On rereading the smart is more linked to whether he should reveal compulsory and target or not and not 'a-smart-vig-kills' - still why should a vigilante do a fair share of the killing early game?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:27:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 16:27:08 GMT -5
No, I honestly can't.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:27:55 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 16:27:55 GMT -5
NETA: @ chucara obviously.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:34:10 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 3, 2009 16:34:10 GMT -5
No, a scum wants to appear town so it isn't a strange move. I hammered the scum godfather lynch as scum which gained me quite some town credit (although it fell apart since we failed to kill the investigator who was double protected so I doomed myself with it). And the corollary that town will do anti-town things (which does not mean anti-town things should be encourage since that would allow scum to do it too). Maybe I should explain.. By consistently, I mean in all games - even the ones I've played where he was scum. Therefore, the fact that he seems townie to me doesn't really give him any credit as town.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:53:14 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 3, 2009 16:53:14 GMT -5
Post counts: 1. peekercpa - 19 2. Special Ed - 18 3. BillMc - 8 4. Guy Incognito - 1 5. shaggy - 7 6. Kat! - 8 7. nphase - 21 8. redskeezix - 5 9. Sister Coyote - 20 10. storyteller - 7 11. Chucara - 27 12. pedescribe - 29 13. hockeyguy - 2 14. Pleonast - 12 15. Natlaw - 14 16. dirx - 7 17. sinjin - 5 18. MHaye - 11 19. Idle Thoughts - 20 20. Boozahol Squid PI - 1 Not much from it as I don't favor a lynch the lurker, but Guy's single post with self vote looks a bit odd.Unofficial Vote Count: BillMc (4): Pedescribe, BillMc (forced), Kat!, shaggy pedescribe (3): Pleonast, Special Ed, Sister Coyote Chucara (3): Redskeezix, Sinjin, nphase nphase (2): Storyteller, Chucara Idle Thoughts (1): Natlaw Natlaw (1): Idle Thoughts Guy Incognito (1): Guy Incognito No vote (5): peekercpa, hockeyguy, dirx, MHaye, Boozahol Squid PI Claims: Chucara - Vote Switcher - Spike, Passenger BillMc - Vigilante - , Passenger Question for BillMc: What's your given name? Our vanilla was Corporal Jones. I don't think this is an indication either way that you didn't include it - I assume everyone was given a name. It does bring up the question why no one has brought up a mass name claim yet. Upsides: possible duplicate, but might not be a lie even Downside: someone bad is looking for a named someone (might be an upside if it is a good person, but out weighted by the possible bad I think). So a bad idea I think on a quick reflection.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:54:40 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 16:54:40 GMT -5
Shaggy: D1.26 Thinks Idle's uncertainty about the voting mechanic isn't very telling; responds to my question about which Day One topic we should tackle, takes a stab at how many Scum there might be in the game D1.45 Response to Ed's mass vote/unvote post discussing his name coming up as Sauron and seeing no reason to change it. D1.79 Catching up: Agrees with Pleo's scum estimate and assumptions are bad; it's best to think Worst Case Scenario; agrees that it's better to vote than not (but doesn't vote); asks for clarification as to how Pleo's vote casts the stink eye on everyone else. D1.148 Catching up again: Thinks Ed and Chucara are being asked to explain themselves over and over to bury other topics; Likewise "why are you voting me for voting"; Too early to be suggesting a claim and soft-claims draw attention but aren't enough in and of themselves to vote someone; Again with the "you don't have to keep explaining yourself"; some type of voting style that I don't understand; Agrees with my "Oh, yes, Scum Would Do That" post. D1.150 Knows this isn't the Borda vote system, just bringing it up and points out that votes linger until the following Day. Self-votes can end up suicidal. "Whether there is a role that can fubar the votes [which it turns out there is, hm.] or giving scum a nice case of bad voting to help get a mis-lynch" Also, thinks voting should be careful and well-considered, not vote early vote often. D1.201 Can see what pede is talking about but understands others' votes for pede nonetheless. Votes BillMc.
Kat! D1.52 Doesn't understand Pleo's rationale for voting himself. Also, "Town are more likely to miss things than scum are, since they don't have a scumboard to discuss the game amongst themselves." D1.203 Apologizes for absence using FB as an excuse. D1.210 May be meta-gaming a little, but wants Pleo to prove that Town are less likely to misunderstand a rules issue than Scum, but without numbers, please. D1.216 Votes Steve for low post count and echolalia. D1.219 Calls the Chucara vote BillMc's "locomotive" and asks if Bill could be potentially misinterpreting "you're not the boss of..." D1.220 Calls attention to her own laziness D1.229 Wasn't saying that Bill's misinterpretation of "you're not the boss of..." was because it's a particularly American phrase. Votes Bill "for blatant word twisting"
Hockeyguy D1.65 Agrees with pede, holding off on vote. D1.101 Apologizes for delay in response, didn't vote because didn't think action was voteworthy.
Hockeyguy still has no vote on record, with less than a day to go in the Day.
Shaggy's actions overall aren't really giving me a read one way or another. His philosophy on voting is much different from mine, but that doesn't tell me a damn thing. He's got a low post count, but in general seems to be participating rather than fluffing.
Kat! I'm a little more suspicious of. Particularly since I've been tagged before, and was in that game correctly identified as Scum, for misunderstanding something that was in the rules thread plain as day, so her defense of Idle's misunderstanding on those grounds doesn't sit well with me. Also, seems to be pushing for a Bill lynch in D1.219, even though I think I was the first person to vote for Chucara. Testing the waters, perhaps?
Hockeyguy I don't know what to do with. I just included him because I saw his D1.65 post and realized we hadn't heard much from him.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 16:55:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 16:55:08 GMT -5
Natlaw, I'll try. It's going to take some unpacking. There are at least three separate issues here. What I think of chucara's claim, what I think of Bill's, what I think good vig play is, whether there's a point to Bill claiming optional vs mandatory vig, and ... I'm already past three. First, to give context to what chucara says below, IIRC he had characterized my objection to his vote against Ed as just a matter of "semantics". Separately, I gave my opinion on Bill's claim (I'll deal with that below). Chucara then said: Nphase: Also pushing my case, before and after claiming. What I *really* don’t like is this: Bill's a smart player. Even if he is an optional (town) vig, I'd expect him to be doing a fair amount of killing early on, so the difference in the early game may well be down to semantics. I don't see any point in pressing him on this issue. Above is after I said that his reasons for voting for me is semantics. Are you actually saying that BillMc should target me? And is BillMc a scum killer that can only target someone with a vote? That prospect kinda scares me. It might be a stretch, but I *really* don’t like what you’ve getting at. Chucara seems to be implying that by using the word "semantics" again, in connection with Bill's vig claim, I was suggesting that Bill vig Chucara. I just don't even get this at all. Bill and Chucara were completely separate issues to me. And then to go on and suggest Bill (and hence I) are both Scum, and I'm somehow signaling that by my comment, and just ... what the heck? That's what I meant by "I don't even know what to say". I can't comprehend anything at all that would lead chucara to that level of paranoia, even beyond rationality regarding the me-signaling-Scum-Bill thing. I'm boggled. Regarding my own viewpoint on Vigs in general and Bill's claiming mandatory vs optional in particular. I do think it is generally a good idea for vigs to use their abilities. Not necessarily every night, the first being the most questionable. But it is a good thing for Town. As someone pointed out I think in the last game I played -- the vig has at least a chance of hitting Scum every Night. That's a chance forfeited if the vig does not act. On top of that, both Bill and I just came off a game where the vig acted every night but the first and did Town a huge favor thereby -- eliminating distractions and low-output players, killing one Scum outright, and just generally being awesome. I do expect Bill to act often if he is a vig, even if he is optional. (I could be wrong about that, but that's my guess.) The difference between optional and mandatory might come down to one kill in the first several days (if he lives that long) -- that's why I said the difference between mandatory and optional might amount to little more than semantics. I guess you differ somewhat in your opinion of vigs?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:06:54 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 3, 2009 17:06:54 GMT -5
See my previous post for my opinion - although you remind my of an argument Pleonast made that on average a vigilante doesn't bring mislynches down even if he kills 2-3 town to one scum. It still reduces the vote count and investigation information by making the game shorter.
The difference between compulsory or not is definitely not semantics, especially not early game with the much less available information to make a decision.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:16:17 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 17:16:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll give you that. I adore vigs, though.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:23:30 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 3, 2009 17:23:30 GMT -5
Well, bed time for me.
Vote: pedescribe Mainly because I don't think either Chucara or BillMc is a good lynch. His tactical vote for BillMc could be scum motivated. It is less than a day to Dusk, so if pedescribe does make a believable claim I'll most likely move back to Idle for lack of better. As in nphase's explanation seems OK to me and lurkers/not voters on Day One not a good lynch (too much policy vote excuse) although if it persists it can't be ignored.
Also pede did make a (short) post after BillMc's claim without commenting on it and he already had three votes at that point so he should have considered a claim at that point I think.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:28:07 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 17:28:07 GMT -5
You know, I'm opposed to the idea of mass claims in general, but seriously, natlaw, WTF would be the point of a mass name claim in a game with no particular canon? Unless someone's name is "Susie Passenger" or someone else's name is "Bobo the brain-sucking alien," I don't see what good it would do us (and, frankly, if someone's name was "Bobo the brain-sucking alien," I'd expect them to turn up Town because (sadly) I trust the mods to be Not That Obvious).
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:28:26 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 17:28:26 GMT -5
Awesome. Coding fail.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 3, 2009 17:30:02 GMT -5
nphase: Ahh.. I get the context now. As I tried to convey - the BillMc thing was a stretch - I thought your point was something in the lines of "since we're unsure of everything early on and Bill will be killing a lot, semantics (my reason for voting for you) is enough to make a difference (make a person - me - live or die)). It's much clearer now.
I still don't get how you think my early vote contradicts anything, but as you're the only one who's voting for me, I won't go into that unless asked to explain again.
Time for bed - I'll have time to reconsider my vote tomorrow.
|
|