|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 9:38:42 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 11, 2009 9:38:42 GMT -5
E-mail, intercepted August 2
Transmission Log: Mail intercepted - 08.02.2009, 13:08 GMT Status - Unsent From - Benjamin Urich (bu2487@att.net) To - J. Jonah Jameson (jj@bugle.com)
Well, they have a plan. It's not much of a plan, but it's a plan. You remember those stupid rumors I gave you that we didn't print? The secret prison for people who ignored the SHRA? Those were stupid, weren't they, JJ? Well, the stupid secret prison that isn't real is HERE on Ryker's Island. There's a room, inside the main complex adjacent to the North side yard - they walked us through it just now. It's a big round room with a machine in the middle - looks like something from a space movie. One entrance, with an airlock kind of thing. Put someone in there, activate the machine, and BAM. They get a one-way ticket to a prison in something called the Negative Zone, which is apparently a damned extradimensional JAIL. I guess there are no guards or cells. They built it to hold the high-impact people who won't register. Stark said that the prison itself basically keeps your strength dampened such that you can't really cause trouble. And he said that at the moment, it's a prison with no exit.
Oh, yeah, Stark is here. You think he'd miss this? Man never met a party he wouldn't crash. The plan is his plan. They all figure Rogers and his people are here, but none of them are wearing their Halloween costumes so they can't tell who's who. They've all got aliases, and right now they're sticking to them. Except Stark, of course. He was calling himself "Tom Scud," but that moustache has been on the TV so often he needn't have bothered.
So their plan is: they're going to vote, and whoever is the lucky choice of the day gets chucked into the Negative Zone and gets the life sucked out of them by Space Zombies, or whatever. They plan to keep it up until Rogers quits. Until Rogers quits. Funny, right?
More later.
- BU
-----------------------------------------------
Day One begins here.
The vote threshold has been set at 35%, which means it will require seven votes to complete a lynch. The Day will continue until any player receives a seventh vote; the Day ends immediately at the timestamp of the seventh vote. You may continue to discuss anything you wish thereafter if I am not around to immediately end the Day, but no votes or unvotes posted after the seventh vote will count.
If you have a Day action, it must be PMed to the moderator before the seventh vote is placed on any player.
Oh, and one more thing:
Tom Scud is Iron Man, and he is Town.
Have fun.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 9:42:14 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 11, 2009 9:42:14 GMT -5
Just bumping this so it shows up on the front page.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 9:50:01 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 11, 2009 9:50:01 GMT -5
The negative zone?! Looks like we're playing for all the marbles.
And huh, Iron Man's out on Day 1. I wonder if Tony has any other powers (don't answer that), or if he's just an Obvious Townie. Well, at least we have someone who can organize any convoluted plan if needed. That's good.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 10:24:55 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 11, 2009 10:24:55 GMT -5
So we already have a revealed mason Day 1. Usually it a couple of days for an overly aggressive townie to be revealed. At any rate a known townie can be a considerable asset as we know they speak true. We could do worse than let Tom try to find scum and support his vote. At least we would know such a lynch was not scum controlled.
I would suspect that given the size of this game, Storyteller thought a masonry was too big an advantage for town, and thus put in this role as kind of a one man masonry. I will therefore be highly suspicious of any other player who claim to be a mason.
The threshold idea is interesting, and more attuned to how mafia was originally designed. I'm glad for it, as I'm tired of Days in which a person gets ousted on the account of 3 votes out of 20. One feature of it is a guaranteed hammer. We do not want the scum to be hammer for obvious reasons. Luckily Storyteller gave us an easy solution. I suggest that Tom Scud be the only one allowed to make that 7th vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 11, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -5
I may not understand the "obvious reasons" that we don't want scum with the hammer. It is always a mislynch, but if TomScud hammers it, it will still be the same mislynch, won't it? And we will have lost a good place to start looking for scum?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 10:52:55 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 11, 2009 10:52:55 GMT -5
Ooh, I love hammer games. They really do add an interesting dimension, which is already being discussed, and they make endgame VERY tricky in LyLo situations.
I'm really excited about this game.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 11:29:43 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 11, 2009 11:29:43 GMT -5
I think this might be the first game I've played in with the hammer mechanism. Definitely the first game I've played in with the threshold to end the Day.
Not that I wasn't already figuring the game was going to be fun and all, but now I'm really rather intrigued.
drainbead, your Batman .sig is a little out of place in a Marvel game, don't you think?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 11:30:11 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 11, 2009 11:30:11 GMT -5
I may not understand the "obvious reasons" that we don't want scum with the hammer. It is always a mislynch, but if TomScud hammers it, it will still be the same mislynch, won't it? And we will have lost a good place to start looking for scum? Obvious might have been a bit strong. The most important aspect of a successful lynch is that the Town picks the candidate. Certainly the town can be wrong and probably are more than they are right. However, they can be right and that is the crucial detail. If the scum are given the hammer it will never result in an outcome they don't want. Sometimes it will net scum and sometimes scum will miscalculate, but it will never be an outcome that they hadn’t desired. I suppose we may lose some information gathering, but I expect it will minimal. When was the last game in which scum were found based on a comprehensive study of voting records? If someone hammers scum are they scum trying to be confirmed or town doing their job? Is a hammer of a townie a malicious scum or misguided townie? I do not wish to give up a shot of a Day 1 lynch for vague information that is nearly impossible to decipher.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 11:33:15 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 11, 2009 11:33:15 GMT -5
I may not understand the "obvious reasons" that we don't want scum with the hammer. It is always a mislynch, but if TomScud hammers it, it will still be the same mislynch, won't it? And we will have lost a good place to start looking for scum? It's in the interest of the anti-registration forces to minimise the amount of discussion. After all, the less time the discussion goes on, the less chance there is that one of the lawbreakers will slip and say something that reveals their rebellious nature. There's also the possibility that the hammer could be dropped on a player who, owing to rl factors - even something as basic as the time zone they live in - before they can claim. We might find ourselves lynching the Doc, say. That would be bad. It's an interesting setup. The hammer percentage isn't too high that we might wait forever to get an agreement, but it's not so low that the antiregistration forces can just come out and pile on to force the lynch.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 12:08:08 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 11, 2009 12:08:08 GMT -5
The most important aspect of a successful lynch is that the Town picks the candidate. Certainly the town can be wrong and probably are more than they are right. However, they can be right and that is the crucial detail. If the scum are given the hammer it will never result in an outcome they don't want. Sometimes it will net scum and sometimes scum will miscalculate, but it will never be an outcome that they hadn’t desired. How is it an outcome they find desirable if they miscalculate? That makes no sense to me at all. I don't think we can avoid a Day 1 lynch because there will be no End of Day until the threshold is met, right? Or am I misunderstanding? I can see where having Tom do the hammering is a good idea because it would minimize a certain amount of WiFoM about whether it's Scum hammering Scum for Town cred, or Town "doing their job". That said, though, we'll probably just end up playing the WiFoM game with the sixth voter or something along those lines.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 12:13:42 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 11, 2009 12:13:42 GMT -5
I think the point that Hawkmod is trying to make is that if we give Tom the hammer by rule, then Scum never have the opportunity to manipulate the vote that way. It restricts their options,and that is almost always a good move. I'm generally leery of giving orders to confirmed Town in this way, but at first glance it seems a good idea despite the potential loss of information it entails.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 12:48:14 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 11, 2009 12:48:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I got that. Agreed with it, too, though I share your hesitation about giving orders to anyone.
I just don't understand how a miscalculation can be a desirable outcome, is all.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 12:51:54 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 11, 2009 12:51:54 GMT -5
I mean they will get the outcome they want. It won't always be the outcome they should have wanted. I don't want to rely on the scum shooting themselves in the foot to win.
Sorry. I meant to say lose the shot at a successful lynch. There will be a lynch regardless.
Oh I'm sure. It just takes a little power from an unknown and hands it to a known townie.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 12:59:11 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 11, 2009 12:59:11 GMT -5
There's only one trouble with handing the hammer power to a specific player.
What happens if that player is resolutely against lynching the person on six votes, and will not hammervote? Do you let someone else do it then? Or perhaps all pile onto the player your designated hammerman is voting for?
I can see why we want someone known to be Town as the hammer voter. I just doubt it's practicable in all circumstances.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 13:07:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 11, 2009 13:07:12 GMT -5
So we already have a revealed mason Day 1. Usually it a couple of days for an overly aggressive townie to be revealed. At any rate a known townie can be a considerable asset as we know they speak true. We could do worse than let Tom try to find scum and support his vote. At least we would know such a lynch was not scum controlled. I would suspect that given the size of this game, Storyteller thought a masonry was too big an advantage for town, and thus put in this role as kind of a one man masonry. I will therefore be highly suspicious of any other player who claim to be a mason. The threshold idea is interesting, and more attuned to how mafia was originally designed. I'm glad for it, as I'm tired of Days in which a person gets ousted on the account of 3 votes out of 20. One feature of it is a guaranteed hammer. We do not want the scum to be hammer for obvious reasons. Luckily Storyteller gave us an easy solution. I suggest that Tom Scud be the only one allowed to make that 7th vote. I don't like this post. 1. Why are you calling Tom a mason? He's just a confirmed Townie. 2. Why are you so quick to dismiss the possibility of there being a masonry? I think it's odd to state that you'll be suspicious of a possible mason claim. I mean, isn't that something that would have been better served to not say until someone claimed mason? Like sachertorte often says, why give the Scum any idea what you're going to find scummy? They'll just avoid doing that to avoid suspicion. A Scum's priority is avoiding suspicion. A Townie might do it, becayse they are more concerned with finding Scum than avoiding suspicion. 3. Why on earth would we want to force Tom Scud to cast the hammer vote? It seems like taking a confirmed Tonwie and limiting him. Telling him, you can't vote until we have 6 votes on someone else. So you've got to pick someone with 6 votes. Also, what if the Scum have some sort of bomb role that takes out the hammer voting. The last game I played in with hammers (the Hammer brothers) there was actually a mechanism in place where powers were involved in hammering. This might be true in this game as well. Plus, I don't like Iron Man.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 13:22:41 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 11, 2009 13:22:41 GMT -5
3. Why on earth would we want to force Tom Scud to cast the hammer vote? It seems like taking a confirmed Tonwie and limiting him. Telling him, you can't vote until we have 6 votes on someone else. So you've got to pick someone with 6 votes. So Tom simply lets it be known who he would be voting for, publicly but unofficially. If Tom's target hits six votes first, than Tom makes his official vote for his target. If someone else hits six first, then (assuming we go this route) we hope Tom goes along with the plan. I'm still weighing the benefits of this plan, so I'm not coming down on either side just yet (although my impression is that it's basically a solid idea) -- but I don't see how this is limiting Tom in any way.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 13:40:01 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 11, 2009 13:40:01 GMT -5
There's only one trouble with handing the hammer power to a specific player. What happens if that player is resolutely against lynching the person on six votes, and will not hammervote? Do you let someone else do it then? Or perhaps all pile onto the player your designated hammerman is voting for? I can see why we want someone known to be Town as the hammer voter. I just doubt it's practicable in all circumstances. You call it a bug, I'd say it is a feature. The scum (and remainder) of the town will have to convince Tom that they are right before a person is lynched. By the same token Tom Scum will have to get 6 people to agree with him/pretend to in order to get someone lynched. I'm perfectly fine giving Tom veto power.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 13:50:53 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 11, 2009 13:50:53 GMT -5
That is what a mason is. Their power is that they are a confirmed townie. Usually via another player, but in this case by the mod. It isn't impossible for there to be a masonry, but having at least 3 or 4 confirmed townies (there are likely other roles that are confirmable or semi-confirmable) in a 19 person game would make things very difficult on scum. Normally my default is to trust a mason claim. I'm just saying my default now is to not trust it. It would be nice if I could set up traps to ensnare scum, but having no guarantee of being alive 5 minutes from now I feel it is best to get my thoughts out whenever I can. I dont' see that I limited Tom in any way. He still can express his views and push for votes. He can refuse to vote for someone with 6 votes and force the players to rethink their position. I'm putting a lot of power in his hands, and I'm okay with that, since I know his intentions are noble. If there is some hammering mechanic, then I'm willing to rethink this approach, but I don't think we should play suboptimally just in case Story has something up his sleeve.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 14:05:04 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 11, 2009 14:05:04 GMT -5
...just in case Story has something up his sleeve. Just for the sake of clarity, that should probably read "...just in case we figure out whatever it is Story has up his sleeve".
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 14:05:50 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 11, 2009 14:05:50 GMT -5
Maybe we should see what Tom thinks about it? Maybe he'll see it as too much responsibility and this whole discussion will come to nothing.
But I agree that it's not limiting per se. Tom can make and change votes just like anyone else; it's not like once he votes, he's stuck with it. Basically we'd be all agreeing to his consent to lynch anyone. If he's already in the desired bandwagon when it reaches six votes, then he'd basically just say he's OK with that player being hammered, and at that point anyone can do it.
What are we better off with? Distributed responsibility for the hammer, with uncertain motives and some small possibility of catching Scum doing something scummy; or pre-determined responsibility on a single player, where at least we know the motive is pure?
Re: Masons -- Disney Mafia had three plus an Obvious Town, which is what Tom is, I think. It also had 29 players; we have, what, 17? I can see where Hawkmod is coming from on this, but would not be surprised to find another one or two self-confirming roles in the game, and do not think a two-man masonry is entirely out of the question.
Ed -- a townie can hardly avoid claiming Mason if that's what they are (well, they could, but ...) Why bring up the possibility of a townie falling unknowingly into doing something pre-defined as scummy when that's not what Hawkmod's comment would lead to? If there is anything nefarious in that comment of his, it's a heck of a lot more direct than that. Your dislike of that comment seems mis-aimed.
Also, powers involved in the hammering in the other game? In what way?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 14:12:01 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 11, 2009 14:12:01 GMT -5
The one thing *I* don't like about Hawkmod's comments so far is his dismissal of the role of voting records in finding Scum or "confirming" Town. They might often fail to play a definitive role, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't! I think people get lazy/overwhelmed by data and just simply fail to go back and look, most of the time. There is a downside to the proposal.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 15:06:15 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 11, 2009 15:06:15 GMT -5
Speaking of voting records, I'm planning on maintaining a vote chart like I've done in the past. Yeah, I know they're not the prettiest things in the world, but they're more or less effective. Hmmm...on preview, I see that Chrome doesn't display the thin cell lines (or at least it doesn't for me). That'll be problematic. Have to see what can be done about that...
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 15:18:17 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 11, 2009 15:18:17 GMT -5
Didn't realise I had been subbed in already :-)
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 16:14:13 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 11, 2009 16:14:13 GMT -5
Okay, that made me giggle. I agree with the general drift of Hawkmod's posts, although I do think he goes a bit far sometimes. I agree that Tom should probably always get first crack at the hammer. If we get to six votes and then someone clinches it without Tom being there, I'm going to think they may have wanted to seal the lynch without a confirmed townie weighing in. But if Tom refuses, or waffles, I'm not sure that it would necessarily be the best move to wait. After all, just because Tom is town doesn't necessarily mean he's always right. I also agree that in this game of 19, there aren't likely to be 3 masons on top of an Obvious Townie. If it is, then that means the scum are packing some serious firepower. However, I am not going to be meeting a mason claim with automatic suspicion--that, IMHO, is too aggressive for speculation at the moment. We also have to consider the possibility of recruitment, which Story mentioned specifically as a possibility. If there is recruitment, it could mean that one of the 'fully confirmable' townies is actually scum. Meaning that we can't completely trust Tom Scud or any claimed masons after the end of Day 1.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 16:27:02 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 11, 2009 16:27:02 GMT -5
You know, that's true. If there is a recruitment mechanic in play. "Confirmed" only means confirmed at the moment the Mod says.
Hm. Must consider this more thoroughly.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 18:29:40 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 11, 2009 18:29:40 GMT -5
Hi all, just checking in. Today was a busy RL day. Two finals, now driving north to Wi, just outside of Chicago at the moment. I'm going to try to keep up over the weekend but won't have a lot of time to contribute.
Just a couple of thoughts before we have to start paying tolls every 10 minutes: Never saw a confirmed townie on Day 1 before. Don't know what I think about making Tom the hammer, waiting to see what he says about it. Given the "recruitment" possibility I'm not sure that we should place such utmost confidence in one person. Don't see why we shouldn't have masons because we have a confirmed townie either. Last game we had only 20 players and had 3 masons.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 18:32:59 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 11, 2009 18:32:59 GMT -5
Don't know how that posted, typing in the dark is hard.
Given that this is a no vanilla game I bet the scum got some nice powers, so a 2 person masonry would not be out of order.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 18:40:37 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 11, 2009 18:40:37 GMT -5
well while i understand, i think, what hawk is attempting to accomplish by proposing that tom be the hammer i am going to kind of agree and kind of disagree. i do believe that having a confirmed townie pull the plug reduces the chance of shenanigans there are also a couple of drawbacks. what if tom just won't do it because of whatever reason? second i agree with ped. i don't think that toms confirmed status as town necessarily means that he is always going to be right. third, we know what the thresshold for end of Day is toDay. who is to say that it will also be along the same criteria. fourth, with some potential, maybe so maybe no, recruitment mechanism in effect who is to say that his alignment will remain constant.
but for toDay i certainly am not averse since we are kind of feeling our way through.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 18:42:23 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 11, 2009 18:42:23 GMT -5
also, my bad i know. can someone repost or link to story's recruitment statement. for the life of me i can't find it. i know he said something and just want to refresh.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 11, 2009 18:44:02 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 11, 2009 18:44:02 GMT -5
Hi. Checking in, and I have no problem being the designated hammerer. The only problem I can see there is that I can only post from home, which means evening (US) hours, which could be pretty unfair to some of our European players. But I'll try to make sure whoever is under suspicion has a reasonable amount of time to defend themselves.
Also, I'll say there is very likely to be recruitment in this game, as I have a power that interacts with recruitment in a manner that I will not disclose at this time.
Finally, I'd like to point out that as Iron Man, I have access to the most powerful weapons that can be devised by one of the most brilliant inventive minds of our time (viz, mine) backed by the resources of a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. The opposition (per canon, anyway) is led by an octogenarian who hits people with a food-service tray.
Just a thing to keep in mind, loyal Townies, in case the recruiter comes calling.
|
|