|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 18:35:55 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 12, 2009 18:35:55 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. Here's post 52: Hi! I've read the Day so far, but I'm hopped up on caffeine, so I'm all goofy. I would tentatively support the Tom Scud hammer suggestion for the time being, based on the same reasoning that outed Masons often get volunteered for in-game decisions: He may not be right, but he won't be lying, so we only have to analyze his analysis for errors, not for deception or fact-twisting. Yes, we'll have to keep the recruitment possibility in mind (especially now that Tom's confirmed that it's a definite possibility, not just a "may or may not exist in the game" type of possibility), but we should be able to count on him at least for the first Day. And can we get a Player List thread up?I still feel we risk giving up some accountability. And the benefit is that we know Tom won't have any non-Town motivation for dropping a hammer. I mean, can't we just agree not to drop a hammer until it appears that the Town consensus is that we drop the hammer? I'm not a big fan of pseudo votes. psuedo votes are cool (is that like faux suede?). But in this case, I'd be willing to have some straw voting of some sort. We can use the straw vote for accountability, and then when it appears we've reached a consensus, 7 of us can get together and drop a hammer.
|
|
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 12, 2009 18:37:55 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 12, 2009 18:37:55 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"? That's a good question, actually. People are accountable for their votes. If someone drops the hammer, that is an action for which they can be called to account. Votes can be tracked. Votes need to be justified. A "pseudo-vote" doesn't. It's just another name for a Finger of Suspicion - something with no real weight. I don't think I'm prepared to ever post a pseudo-vote, let alone with the frequency they have been called for. This might be a good (or bad) time to mention that I have been summarily sent on what the DWP are pleased to call a "course." I put it in inverted commas because there is no syllabus, no structured learning - I have to spend two hours a day going back and forth to a "training centre" about 10 miles away, there to spend the day doing the same things I do here but in less congenial surroundings. But I won't be able to read, let alone post, in a Mafia game. I'll still be able to play in the evenings, but my daytime ability to participate is down the tubes for the next three months. Just thought you ought to know.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 20:16:02 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 12, 2009 20:16:02 GMT -5
How do pseudo votes hold people accountable? Can't the scum pseudo vote for whoever they want? They could all pseudo bus each other. How is that going to help us?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 20:24:18 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 12, 2009 20:24:18 GMT -5
How do pseudo votes hold people accountable? Can't the scum pseudo vote for whoever they want? They could all pseudo bus each other. How is that going to help us? that's a good point. What if we did something like this: 1. We all say who we would vote for. 2. We keep track of the votes. 3. When it becomes apparent who we want lynched, then we give real votes for that person and lynch them. Since the straw votes would, in effect, be real votes, the Scum would have the same accountability as in a regular vote. (Even in a regular vote, it's very rare, especially Day 1, that the Scum have to do any manipulation)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 21:28:42 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 12, 2009 21:28:42 GMT -5
Good lord people. If I think someone is the scummiest but they have six votes on them I CAN"T vote for them under the Tom Scud is the hammer vote scheme. Sure I can say I will vote for them, or would vote for them or whatever but have any of you all actually gone back and tried to look for that later? The marroon voting was supposed to substitute for hammering someone early and give people an opportunity to psuedo-vote without hammering. The point was to make it easier to go back later and look at voting patterns. The point was ease of accountability.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 21:56:12 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 12, 2009 21:56:12 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)? Nice way to make a message mean whatever you want by snipping. Are you seriously suggesting this is agreeing with me? peeks: I personally read that as sarcasm. I'll start off: Vote: vote Natlaw
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 22:23:36 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 12, 2009 22:23:36 GMT -5
and while sinjin and i rarely agree on anything i have to agree with him that relying on the snipped part of my quote was really lame. i mean i was being a smart ass, for goodness sakes.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 22:25:55 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 12, 2009 22:25:55 GMT -5
He's not the only one who read it that way. I read the first part as joking around about you typing out the suggesting with "vote pseudo" at the end, and the last part as supporting the suggestion. Even if peeker didn't mean it to be an agreement, Natlaw wasn't the only one who interpreted it as one.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 22:36:16 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 12, 2009 22:36:16 GMT -5
and while sinjin and i rarely agree on anything i have to agree with him that relying on the snipped part of my quote was really lame. i mean i was being a smart ass, for goodness sakes. Here's the problem though. Sometimes, you're just a smart ass. Sometimes, you're a smart ass trying to convey a message. And then you get frustrated with us for not being able to tell the difference. I, too, took that to be your smart ass way of saying to agreed with sinjin. Perhaps what fooled me was the 2 times you said you agreed with sinjin. Call me silly.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 12, 2009 23:34:54 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 12, 2009 23:34:54 GMT -5
Good lord people. If I think someone is the scummiest but they have six votes on them I CAN"T vote for them under the Tom Scud is the hammer vote scheme. Sure I can say I will vote for them, or would vote for them or whatever but have any of you all actually gone back and tried to look for that later? The marroon voting was supposed to substitute for hammering someone early and give people an opportunity to psuedo-vote without hammering. The point was to make it easier to go back later and look at voting patterns. The point was ease of accountability. Well, my thought is, the mod is probably not going to keep track of maroon votes for us so as long as I'm going back and looking for pseudo votes, I might as well go back and look for suspicion lists or whatever. But, frankly, if you drop the hammer on Tom Scud or whoever has 6 votes and that person is a Townie, then I'm just going to go through the voters and look at their reasonings. I think that it's a good idea but I don't think that it is necessary.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 6:11:52 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 13, 2009 6:11:52 GMT -5
I'm not seeing why we don't vote as usual. If there's a wagon on someone, or a suspicious hammer, then that is something we can work with. The hammer scenario is only going to be critical when we get to end game
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 6:58:25 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 13, 2009 6:58:25 GMT -5
Nice way to make a message mean whatever you want by snipping. Are you seriously suggesting this is agreeing with me? <snip> I personally read that as sarcasm. I did consider if peeker was using sarcasm and actually disagreeing with you. And it was certainly a possibility if you only look at the first part: This alone reads as mocking your proposal which is why I only quoted the next line: Now this could still be part of the sarcasm, but to me it reads more like he added this line to make it clear he actually agreed with you. and while sinjin and i rarely agree on anything i have to agree with him that relying on the snipped part of my quote was really lame. i mean i was being a smart ass, for goodness sakes. And of course here he neither confirms or denies if he actually agreed with you, while supporting your vote without actually voting me. Vote: peekercpa For being obtuse. Good lord people. If I think someone is the scummiest but they have six votes on them I CAN"T vote for them under the Tom Scud is the hammer vote scheme. Sure I can say I will vote for them, or would vote for them or whatever but have any of you all actually gone back and tried to look for that later? The marroon voting was supposed to substitute for hammering someone early and give people an opportunity to psuedo-vote without hammering. The point was to make it easier to go back later and look at voting patterns. The point was ease of accountability. But how was Inner Stickler for 'non-accountability'? He was actually against the 'Tom-Scud-must-hammer' scheme. 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. Later he is suggests using FoS which is basically the same as your plan, just using the more common way of indication suspicion when you don't want to vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 10:04:13 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 10:04:13 GMT -5
here's the deal nat.
i absolutely was trying to be a smart ass.
and i wanted to make sure that was understood.
now having said all that i also know that i have been accused of being a little less than clear at times. even in those instances where in my mind i was being as direct as i could be. i also know that this game has gotten a little more widespread where a number of players that participate english may not have been their first language. to be honest with you it's hard enough for me to keep up with the genders of all of you folks much less your primary language. that's why i wanted to make clear that i was trying to be a smart ass without your snipping crossing my threshhold for a vote. that's why especially here and on giraffe i don't get real worked up about pronoun inconsistency or some language nuances.
it's like the time i ordered mcnuggets in mexico. i am pretty good at spanish and i border on being fluent but still screw things up. well instead of getting two 10 piecers (or whatever number) i ended up getting 12 fifteen piecers. i probably should have tipped when i paid but was to be honest so drunk that my conversion scales weren't working real well either. imagine my surprise when they brought enough mcnuggets for my buddy and i to basically feed everyone that is participating in this thread.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 10:31:42 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 13, 2009 10:31:42 GMT -5
I am not suggesting we have the mod keep track of psuedo votes. I was suggesting the method so WE could more easily go back later and see how people voted. It's way easier to find a colored bit in a sea of posts than wade thru pages and pages of black and white text. After several months it's hard to get up the gumption to go back and read pages and pages of text looking for a vote intent statement in the middle of a post. I see that method as being an easy way for scum to cya in late game.
I didn't consider using the FOS for this because some people throw out FOS's like candy during a parade. Scum could come back later and say, well that one wasn't really an intention to vote for "X" FOS, that one was a real FOS. This one was my real FOS intent to vote post." BTW I don't think I've ever used an FOS because I think they are meaningless.
Unvote: Natlaw since others did not see the same thing I did in peeker's post.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 11:20:46 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 13, 2009 11:20:46 GMT -5
... BTW I don't think I've ever used an FOS because I think they are meaningless.... And I think psuedo votes are equally meaningless. The only difference being the wording and the coloring?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 11:26:36 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 13, 2009 11:26:36 GMT -5
here's the deal nat. i absolutely was trying to be a smart ass. and i wanted to make sure that was understood. But did you agree or not with sinjin's proposal?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 11:33:04 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 13, 2009 11:33:04 GMT -5
... BTW I don't think I've ever used an FOS because I think they are meaningless.... And I think psuedo votes are equally meaningless. The only difference being the wording and the coloring? I must not be communicating well. 1. No more than 7 people can vote for the person who gets lynched today. 2. There are 19 people in the game. 3. It is informative sometimes to go back and look at the vote record. 4. Some people may want to vote for the vote leader but won't be able to because only 7 people can vote for the lynchee today. 4a. Some people (scum) will be able to claim later that they couldn't vote for the lynchee because of the hammer vote constraint. 5. This limits using the vote record in future days. 6. I explained why I preferred a 'faux' vote instead of an FOS. I saw a problem and suggested a solution. No one else seems to see the problem so I hereby withdraw the suggestion. Can we move on now? Or should we just natter on about it until Christmas?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 12:07:25 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 12:07:25 GMT -5
here's the deal nat. i absolutely was trying to be a smart ass. and i wanted to make sure that was understood. But did you agree or not with sinjin's proposal? whether you call it a pseudo vote, a straw vote or just an fos i don't see the point. they all seem, to me to have the same connotation. which, is to a great extent a non vote. now in this game, with the hammer mechanism it's a wee bit different. but i still think most folks are generally pretty good about expressing suspicion even in the absence of a vote. but then again i have never been much of an fos'er so to some extent it's meh. i mean if you are going to be waffling on your suspicions you will also be waffling on your pseudo vote. well i think so and so is most likely deserving of a pseudo vote but i still am having second thoughts. the prior is an example of waffling not anything that i espousing. it's kind of like the whole confirmed mason thingie. i think them being in charge of some subjective actions (i.e. picking who would go in what order in the case of a mass claim - and that is not a proposal just an example) makes sense because they won't be trying to game the system. same with tom toDay. it makes sense that he give some sort of time frame on when the hammer will fall. that precludes a whole bunch of claiming too early while still giving the person on the block sufficient time to make a claim, or not, while giving everyone else in the game sufficient time to be able to judge what the best action should be.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 12:11:41 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 13, 2009 12:11:41 GMT -5
This whole voting/pseudo voting thing is definitely making thing tricky for my plan to run a vote chart again. Since votes are now being cast, I need to come up with a system for this -- I suppose I'll just record this as the come in for now, but does anyone have any ideas to include the possibility of pseudo-voting? A different colored cell or something, maybe? ( Example chart)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 12:12:08 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 13, 2009 12:12:08 GMT -5
6. I explained why I preferred a 'faux' vote instead of an FOS. I saw a problem and suggested a solution. No one else seems to see the problem so I hereby withdraw the suggestion. Can we move on now? Or should we just natter on about it until Christmas? Since you didn't notice, I agreed with you.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 12:16:18 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 13, 2009 12:16:18 GMT -5
Also, can we get the player list updated? I see that BillMc subbed in on page 1, but I'm not sure who we lost. I'm a little confused about the whole Pede-saw-the-scum-board thing as well. I assume he's out now -- who took over for him?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 12:42:43 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 13, 2009 12:42:43 GMT -5
Ok, I think I understand more of what sinjin is saying. It's not a bad plan in and of itself. But I still feel that what you want the pseudovotes to do is already pretty much covered by FOS's. You say you've never used a FOS, yet FOS do exactly what your pseudovotes do. I know for me, and a lot of other people, a FOS is for when someone does something scummy but your vote is already on someone scummier. But I see what you mean with the only 7 people can vote. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill but then I usually am against all these complicated plans and gambits. Since the scum are right among us participating they're working fulltilt at making our plans work for them rather than against.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 13:21:19 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 13, 2009 13:21:19 GMT -5
pedescribe was replaced by Kat. He did not see any of the spoiler boards themselves; he saw my posts to the spoiler board, where I had posted every player's PM for the benefit of those watching spoiled. Could have left him in, but that might have affected the game a bit :-)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 15:34:24 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 13, 2009 15:34:24 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan, as you all might know, of ideas that noise up the game thread. So the "mandatory pseudovotes" idea is pretty much awful to me. This is especially the case since I'm definitely beginning to lean toward letting anyone be the hammer. Town needs data points, and that's an important one that we'd be losing if we had Tom do it every Day. It may not be helpful at first, but at endgame I think it might be critical. sinjin is arguing for accountability, but in reality his idea would potentially result in the opposite.
For proposing an idea that would add unnecessary noise to the game with at best neutral and at worst anti-Town results:
Vote: vote sinjin
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 15:40:37 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 13, 2009 15:40:37 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan, as you all might know, of ideas that noise up the game thread. So the "mandatory pseudovotes" idea is pretty much awful to me. This is especially the case since I'm definitely beginning to lean toward letting anyone be the hammer. Town needs data points, and that's an important one that we'd be losing if we had Tom do it every Day. It may not be helpful at first, but at endgame I think it might be critical. sinjin is arguing for accountability, but in reality his idea would potentially result in the opposite. For proposing an idea that would add unnecessary noise to the game with at best neutral and at worst anti-Town results: Vote: vote sinjin [/color][/quote] voting for someone because they proposed an idea you don't like? How would sinjin's idea result in the opposite of accountability? Please explain that to me. And don't give me the fact that the Scum can hide behind fake votes. The Scum can hide behind REAL votes in games without hammers. If we force everyone to make a case and vote, we get MORE accountability, not less. You're encouraging less voting and therefore less accountability. You've gone from wanting Tom to hammer to now not wanting him to hammer.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 16:36:47 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 13, 2009 16:36:47 GMT -5
I haven't been able to put a post together since this discussion started, but it's been bouncing around in my head for the past couple of days and I can't see that there's any truly necessary argument for any side of the issue. All the choices have good sides and bad ones. Just to name a few:
Tom hammers. (This is ignoring any recruitment issues for the moment.) Good -- Scum ability to control the lynch is reduced. Bad -- many votes, including those of Scum, may be reduced in accountability. Can be mitigated somewhat by just modifying how we look at votes: if someone is consistently waiting to vote until people are near the hammer limit, then failing to take a visible stand one way or the other, this is going to look suspicious. Or if they're voting early for cruddy reasons and disappearing at the end of the day. Or any number of other things. Bottom line for me: it requires a bit higher level of vigilence from Town in terms of forcing people to justify their actions or lack thereof (and in terms of paying attention to things that are not directly in the voting record), but it is workable and has a distinct positive side.
This is still what I would prefer for today.
Anyone can hammer. Good -- puts maximum accountability on Scum when one of their own or another critical player is in danger. Bad -- Scum can control lynch to large extent if they so wish (at some risk to them). And it allows considerable latitude for wishy-washy votes if they do not so wish, same as the first option. (Again, this can be mitigated somewhat by extra effort on the part of Town.) Some risk of the hammer falling prematurely (by accident or "accident"). Bottom line for me on this one: eh. Has some plus sides in terms of information gained, but also risks that the first option does not have. It's not my first preference (at least for today), but it's not a ridiculous position to take, either.
Pseudo-votes, with final outcome determined by consensus. Good: As accurate as it's possible to get in terms of accurately recording player intentions. (Though requires a bit more effort on our part in terms of record-keeping.) Negligible risk of premature end-of-Day; and allows only the traditional ways for Scum to mess with things. Bad: ... really not much of anything, despite the pain-in-the-rear aspect of the accounting. As indicated by my above-indicated support for the Tom-hammers position, I don't really think that what we stand to gain by allowing Scum the chance to hammer is quite worth what we stand to gain by preventing it.
All of that said, I still do not really want to use pseudovotes, and here's why. This is Storyteller's game. He put the hammer mechanism in it for a reason. Whether that reason is intrinsic to the game's other mechanics (as I think Ed mentioned as a possibility at one point) or whether it's just moderator preference, I'm very reluctant to just do an end-around and pretend it's not there.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 16:38:03 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 13, 2009 16:38:03 GMT -5
NETA: Sorry, I meant to go preview and put in a few underlines for readability, then forgot. Hope it's clear enough.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 17:08:11 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 13, 2009 17:08:11 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan, as you all might know, of ideas that noise up the game thread. So the "mandatory pseudovotes" idea is pretty much awful to me. This is especially the case since I'm definitely beginning to lean toward letting anyone be the hammer. Town needs data points, and that's an important one that we'd be losing if we had Tom do it every Day. It may not be helpful at first, but at endgame I think it might be critical. sinjin is arguing for accountability, but in reality his idea would potentially result in the opposite. For proposing an idea that would add unnecessary noise to the game with at best neutral and at worst anti-Town results: Vote: vote sinjin voting for someone because they proposed an idea you don't like? How would sinjin's idea result in the opposite of accountability? Please explain that to me. And don't give me the fact that the Scum can hide behind fake votes. The Scum can hide behind REAL votes in games without hammers. If we force everyone to make a case and vote, we get MORE accountability, not less. You're encouraging less voting and therefore less accountability. You've gone from wanting Tom to hammer to now not wanting him to hammer. Yeah, I'm voting someone for proposing an idea I don't like. Can you name an early Day One vote that does anything different? I mean, really, barring massive slips or random voting, what else is there to vote for or against on Day One if not ideas? Here's why I think the psuedo-vote idea is ultimately bad. Number one, there's no way to force everyone to do it. I'm not going to psuedo-vote in this game--I'm just going to effing vote, because I have no reason not to. The pseudo-vote idea only helps those who have something to hide through regular voting records. There's always going to be lurkers (Town and Scum), or people like me who see no reason to fake-vote when a real vote will suffice. Are you going to lynch anyone who doesn't go along with this plan? That's ridiculous. Number two, NOTHING you've said can't be covered better with a real vote rather than a fake vote. You say the Scum can hide behind real votes in games without hammers. Well, in case you haven't noticed, this game has a hammer. So it's a lot easier for Scum to hide if they have a "pseudo-vote" to fall behind AND they never have to hammer because Tom always does it. Yeah, I changed my mind about Tom hammering, because the more I think about it, the more I think that we need as many data points as possible, and who hammers, when, and why are an important portion of that. Is that a bad thing in your mind?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 17:13:17 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 17:13:17 GMT -5
ok, i am going to be obtuse because i have been shopping and have a headache.
i want one example where anyone has used a vote analysis as there primary reason for voting someone as not town. not this person is acting scummy and their votes back it up. rather, there is no indication that this person is scum but here look at the fucking votes. they are scum without a doubt. i mean votes establish accountability. i get that. but sheesh it seems to me that most of the call outs are not because of a vote but rather because of interactions and statements as the primary reasoning. and hal i appreciate the effort but to be honest i won't look at it once during the whole game.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 17:18:54 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 17:18:54 GMT -5
neta:
mutton against you personally.
|
|