Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 4:41:26 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 12, 2009 4:41:26 GMT -5
Hi all, I was a bit caught up in The Tawny Man books, but this game should now have my full attention . Have fun! Mail intercepted - 08.02.2009, 13:08 GMT Status - Unsent How do you intercept an unsent mail? I guess one of the dangers of cloud computing . And can we get a Player List thread up?That information is available in New York City, although we seem to be enough cut off that it's not yet updated with the substitutes.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 5:14:32 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 12, 2009 5:14:32 GMT -5
Tom Scud is Iron Man, and he is Town. A mod confirmed town on Day One: nice in that it is one player less that's scum Today, tricky in the already mentioned 'Let Iron Man hammer the lynch' and the vote excuse of 'I'll vote with the confirmed town'. On hammering, it seems the most important thing hasn't been mentioned yet: don't hammer until all (or most) votes are in. I don't think it must be Tom Scud until we would be at lynch or lose. Of course, at that point he might be recruited, but I think it not unlikely he's got some some resistance to that or the Night kill with him being revealed on Day One. Another note is that scum might blatantly hammer anyway to make sure they can use a specific power of the scum to be lynched. For example in Dr. Horrible our unstoppable killer got lynched which we definitely could have used to kill an outed investigator. So we already have a revealed mason Day 1. an Obvious Town, which is what Tom is, I think. Since Night Zero actions weren't ruled out, Tom Scud: are you an Obvious Town (as in alignment revealed by default) or was in the result of an action? I think the latter not as likely given Iron Man's role in the color and thus Hawkeyes Mason description somewhat odd. But that discussion was in Dr. Horrible as well, so it might not have been meant in the strict sense of 'mason: a player who knows the alignment of another player(s)'. 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. Since this is announced as a non-vanilla game, there are no vanilla scum either. Which reminds of Super!Smash!Brothers! where scum masterfully exploited their powers to create the illusion that molefan was a town doctor/investigator by sacrificing a fellow scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 6:40:24 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 6:40:24 GMT -5
On the Tom Scud hammer issue... I guess what bothers me isn't that we're putting our trust in Tom Scud, I'm just afraid we'll lose data points. I'm not saying mine is the correct position, I'm just hesitant to go with a plan just because it sounds good at the outset. I like that we're discussing it. The points I see against it: 1. We can only really lynch someone that Tom Scud wants lynched. We all bring personal biases to the game, and none of us are right all the time. I can see us getting into more of a 'convince Tom Scud' game than a convince each other game. 2. I'm afraid we'll lost some accountability. It might be too easy to say, "I really wanted to vote for Player A, but Tom wasn't going to vote for him, so I put my vote on Player B" 3. I don't recall us ever moving to this strategy in other hammer games where we had a confirmed Townie. Why now? If someone can summarize the reasons for advocating a Tom Scud-only hammer, can they list them? i think kat's #52 summarizes it better than i could and encapsulates my feelings exactly.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 7:07:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 7:07:53 GMT -5
one other observation regarding tom. to some extent the way it is being proposed the sixth vote is in fact the hammer and tom is just acting as a timekeeper on ending the day. not that is necessarily a good or bad thing in and of itself. but i think it would lean more positive. if the vote leader has the understanding that they won't get lynched until say something like 24 hours, or whatever, from the sixth vote being placed we won't have a bunch of claims running around after three or four votes since whomever is on the block will know that they have kind of a fail safe mechanism out there where it won't go all to shit in a matter of hours.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 7:15:25 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 12, 2009 7:15:25 GMT -5
I don't know boo about Marvel Comics, and Tom's comment had me giggling for most of the scroll on down here. It'll be really tough to tell who is telling the truth and who is not. Isn't it always? What's different about it, just because there's a hammer? Recruitment ... blergh. What are Storyteller's "particular prejudices"? The difference isn't the hammer. It's the no vanilla. Roleclaims are going to be off the hook, especially in the early part of the game when a threatened Scum may have no idea what the Town roles are like.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 7:18:20 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 7:18:20 GMT -5
and, wtf, ped you're still alive? I don't think so. NO-ONE PERFORM ANY SEARCHES UNTIL THIS IS FIXED!We've got another security leak, and it happened when I was trying to find one of Hawkmod's posts. Crud. sorry to see you go pedi guess that's what you get for being all smarty hoyty toyty and stuff. my search function runs more along the lines of: ok, now did that person say that on Day 2, page 4 or was it Day 4, page 2? guess i need to get reading. ah, ok here it is Day 3 page 7.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 9:35:21 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 12, 2009 9:35:21 GMT -5
Just to head off any meta-gaming, here's what happened last Night. ped lied. He did not attempt to search Hawkmod's posts; he attempted to search mine Apparently, we discovered, the board was configured such that ALL of my posts, including those to the Spoiler Forum, showed up if you used the "Show Last X Posts" feature. He was thus able to see the entire setup, including the roles and powers of every player.
I have now moved all spoiler content to off-board locations. All is well.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 10:27:36 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 10:27:36 GMT -5
and please take this in the spirit that it is intended.
ped has found numerous ways recently to get removed from the game on Day 1. typically via lynch.
but i've gotta give it up to him on this. very unique. very very unique.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 11:54:16 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 12, 2009 11:54:16 GMT -5
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. Apologies for going meta-gamey, and I know it is taboo to talk about a game in progress, but this is public knowledge....in the current game on FB, with 17 players, there were 5 masons, and recruitment took place during Day 1. While I agree that having an Obvious Townie makes a large masonary unlikely, I wouldn't rule it out. Wrt to recruitment, Story said: A note, which may surprise some: there will/may be recruitment in this game. However, the recruitment mechanism is designed with my own particular prejudices in mind; I think the way it will work will be fair, balanced, and fun.So I would agree with SisterC's's commentary: You know, that's true. If there is a recruitment mechanic in play. "Confirmed" only means confirmed at the moment the Mod says.. All we know for certain, is that Tom Scud is Iron Man, and he was Town at the first post. All we know beyond that is, if there is recruitment, it will be "fair" by whatever measure Story decides "fair" is.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 12:06:00 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 12, 2009 12:06:00 GMT -5
and please take this in the spirit that it is intended. ped has found numerous ways recently to get removed from the game on Day 1. typically via lynch. but i've gotta give it up to him on this. very unique. very very unique. Literally loling over here.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 12:08:05 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Dec 12, 2009 12:08:05 GMT -5
All we know for certain, is that Tom Scud is Iron Man, and he was Town at the first post. All we know beyond that is, if there is recruitment, it will be "fair" by whatever measure Story decides "fair" is. I hate to speculate based on color. But from what I know of the Marvel: Civil War is Iron Man is the leader of one side, and Captain America is the leader of the other. I would think that Iron Man would be immune to being recruited to the other side since he's the leader. After all, he is Tony Stark. Drunken binging and public indecency, sure. Switching sides? Ehhhh. I'm not sure I like the subtle undermining of Mr. Stark so quickly out of the gate.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 12:23:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 12:23:50 GMT -5
All we know for certain, is that Tom Scud is Iron Man, and he was Town at the first post. All we know beyond that is, if there is recruitment, it will be "fair" by whatever measure Story decides "fair" is. I hate to speculate based on color. But from what I know of the Marvel: Civil War is Iron Man is the leader of one side, and Captain America is the leader of the other. I would think that Iron Man would be immune to being recruited to the other side since he's the leader. After all, he is Tony Stark. Drunken binging and public indecency, sure. Switching sides? Ehhhh. I'm not sure I like the subtle undermining of Mr. Stark so quickly out of the gate. but we just don't know. and putting a heck of lot of anything on cannon i think is a really bad strategy. maybe even more so with story. because he's tricksy, don't yaknow. i think it was ped (god rest his soul) that mentioned upthread about our mods aversion to the typical recruitment mechanism. while our mod may be very coy about whether it may or may not exist the fact that he even mentioned it makes me go hmmm. also, with tom including it as part of his character makes it very likely that it exists in this game. in what form, i have no clue. but i think it myopic to believe otherwise. so i find your subtle support of tom in regards to bill's post to be potentially short sighted.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 13:05:01 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 12, 2009 13:05:01 GMT -5
I hate to speculate based on color. But from what I know of the Marvel: Civil War is Iron Man is the leader of one side, and Captain America is the leader of the other. I would think that Iron Man would be immune to being recruited to the other side since he's the leader. After all, he is Tony Stark. Drunken binging and public indecency, sure. Switching sides? Ehhhh. My knowledge of Iron Man pretty much begins and ends with the Robert Downey Jr movie. Never really was a comic fan - so I'll leave it to others to speculate over the color and canon.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 14:07:21 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 12, 2009 14:07:21 GMT -5
Ok, I'm back and sober. I think that if people would prefer to have Tom Scud hammer Today, that's fine. Obviously, if there's recruitment, Tomorrow we don't know. He'll probably still be Town but he may not be. However, I don't think it will matter as much since really, the best path here is to analyze everything everyone says. Look for scummy motivations. If Tom acts very townie for a few days and then all of a sudden starts changing it up, then we could look at him.
As far as recruitment, for the moment I think any recruitment roles out there focus on doing what they're supposed to do. Everyone else can probably put it in the back of their minds for now. We don't need to work ourselves into a tizzy over a potentiality. I really think our best plan right now is simply to look for scumthink and see what Tom thinks of it but not worry about the hammer or who drops it for the moment. I mean, after all, if we just say that Tom is the only one who can drop the hammer then scum can just not vote and claim they didn't want to drop the hammer.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 14:43:56 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 12, 2009 14:43:56 GMT -5
That last sentence is a very good point, IS. The more I read people talking about the hammer, the more I think that it's best we don't limit ourselves.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 14:58:42 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 12, 2009 14:58:42 GMT -5
With the hammer set at 7 votes and a total of 19 players I think we need a method of holding people accountable for their potential votes. I suggest that everyone must post at least a pseudovote every day before the hammer vote and that those be kept as part of the vote record so that normal vote analysis can be done. That way we don't end up with a lot of folks after the fact doing the "woulda voted for shuffle." Psuedo-votes could be made in marroon:
vote Psuedo or another color if we have any marroon haters.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 15:02:27 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 12, 2009 15:02:27 GMT -5
And before anyone comes in and argues, "well I wouldn't have voted because I don't like any of the lynch candidates and no one seems scummy to me", feel free to post your reasons and Psuedo- vote no one.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 15:21:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 15:21:51 GMT -5
<snipped> i totally agree with this post. psuedo hasn't done shit all game. matter of fact the son of a gun is trying to fly under the radar in my opinion. this is the kind of dead weight we can afford to lose early in the game. vote pseudo. for once i agree with sinjin.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 15:24:14 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 15:24:14 GMT -5
neta: 'course we spell it differently here in sotex when it comes voting time. kind of like i vote democrat. spell that kennedy, oh shit he's dead well then johnson.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 15:34:53 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 12, 2009 15:34:53 GMT -5
Do you really think voting is going to be that monolithic? Rather than have funky nonvote votes, why don't we just play as normal and keep an eye on the vote tallies. If someone you want to vote for has already garnered 4 votes or whatever, just FOS them or announce your intention to vote for them in 24 hours if they don't provide a good defense. Remember, there is no deadline. This Day could last a month if no one ever wants to hammer. If people really think a person is scummy then dropping the hammer is good.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 16:07:18 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 12, 2009 16:07:18 GMT -5
I am not expecting monolithic voting IS. I am primarily looking for a record keeping methodology. But you and peeks are basically advocating for non-accountability. Check.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 16:15:23 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 12, 2009 16:15:23 GMT -5
Silly me, I thought votes and FOS were our accountability. I see no reason to adopt a new one-off method when you haven't made a convincing case as to why the current standard is useless.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 16:38:58 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 12, 2009 16:38:58 GMT -5
And you know what? Nice little slam in your last post. The only thing I am advocating here is that people vote for the person they find scummiest. I doubt we'll just happen upon a consensus immediately and frankly, with the number of votes that can lead to a lynching when there's a deadline often being so low, I'm more worried about people trying to avoid getting close to the hammer and not voting. I'd rather have a shorter Day with good, solid reasoning from players than a long and drawn out Day with people voting and unvoting to keep from hammering.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 17:14:01 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 12, 2009 17:14:01 GMT -5
for once i agree with sinjin. I am not expecting monolithic voting IS. I am primarily looking for a record keeping methodology. But you and peeks are basically advocating for non-accountability. Check. I read peeker's post as agreeing with you (ignoring his joke of a misspelling)?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 17:40:27 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 17:40:27 GMT -5
I am not expecting monolithic voting IS. I am primarily looking for a record keeping methodology. But you and peeks are basically advocating for non-accountability. Check. let's see where is that durn box i was trying to check. where in the world can it be?. oh here it is. never fucking said that. sinjin gets the first check mark. and i guess the check on your part would be along the lines of make shit up and see if it sticks. check sinjin gets that one out of the way as well.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 17:41:21 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 17:41:21 GMT -5
for once i agree with sinjin. I am not expecting monolithic voting IS. I am primarily looking for a record keeping methodology. But you and peeks are basically advocating for non-accountability. Check. I read peeker's post as agreeing with you (ignoring his joke of a misspelling)? remember sinjin is working off a different agenda apparently.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 17:43:16 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 17:43:16 GMT -5
neta: the agenda of make fucking shit up an see if my bullshit doesn't get called apparently. are you channeling ped by the way?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 17:44:39 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 17:44:39 GMT -5
netata: the my being sinny boy.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 18:13:57 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 12, 2009 18:13:57 GMT -5
Silly me, I thought votes and FOS were our accountability. I see no reason to adopt a new one-off method when you haven't made a convincing case as to why the current standard is useless. I have to second this. How exactly are "pseudovotes" preferable to actual votes? How are regular votes not enough of a recordkeeping method by themselves? And, how is asking the questions "advocating non-accoutability"?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 18:16:53 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 12, 2009 18:16:53 GMT -5
Sory. Kant spel.
|
|