|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 17:57:05 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 13, 2009 17:57:05 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. I once got lynched as Scum primarily based on voting analysis. Can't remember which game it was. Firefly, maybe? I bandwagon hopped a lot, with all the targets being Town. Someone used that as the basis of a case against me and that was all she wrote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 19:06:03 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 19:06:03 GMT -5
ok, i and i don't doubt that it happens. all i was trying to infer that vote analysis is not an end all. matter of fact i would hazard to guess that it plays a less than fifteen percent factor in most lynches. maybe less.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 19:35:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 13, 2009 19:35:47 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. It's not often a primary reason, but it can be added support for some suspicions. It was used to pretty good effect in Evil Dead, as I recall, among other games.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 19:43:44 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 13, 2009 19:43:44 GMT -5
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. It's true, we can't force someone to pseudo vote. But we also can't force them to really vote. Pseudo voting forces people to NOT hide. Just voting allows people to hide: 1. Just voting can lead to an early lynch. Someone can reach 7 votes relatively quickly with a slip that appears scummy. 2. Just voting can cause a hammer to fall before the player has time to claim. 3. Just voting can cause a Day to end before some people check in. Pseudo voting (or straw voting) prevents all of these things from happening AND allows a person to get their opinon on record. If the Town agrees to do so, and someone fails to comly, then I would consider that a data point against them. It's not similar to a consensus call for a mass claim. Someone refusing to claim would garner a good amount of suspicion. 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. A few things cannot be covered by a real vote that can be covered with a straw vote. 1. A person can get more than 7 votes and have all of those votes posted without the Day ending prematurely. 2. Everyone can be strongly encouraged to give an opinion without the danger of allowing a hammer to end the Day early. (Wouldn't you hesitate to cast a 6th or even 5th vote for someone knowing the Day can end early before a claim is made.) 3. Scum can not vote and claim that they didn't want to let the hammer fall. And when called on it the next Day, then can have worked on their reasons and who they might have voted for. For example, let's say a SK or Vig type takes out a Scum that Night, the Scum can come back the next Day and say, Oh, yeah, they were scummy, I would have so voted for them. If they;d had a straw vote out, they wouldn't be able to be so wishy washy. 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? No.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 19:55:24 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 13, 2009 19:55:24 GMT -5
I agree that there are a few circumstances in which a psuedo-vote may be better than an actual vote. But there's a difference between using the FOS mechanism (which exists purely for situations like that), and forcing that mechanism on everyone, regardless of situation or motivation. The former is a good use of a fake vote. The latter is just garbage noise, since the vast majority of townies will either be voting or making a good argument for why not.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 21:17:16 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 21:17:16 GMT -5
and ed i understand your passion. but a vote has a heck of a different connotation than a pseudo/straw/fos vote. why don't we just use the traditional fos convention if you are so worked up about it as opposed to adding another layer of color to our normal activities.
vote pseudo a "real" vote
vote pseudo#2 this is pseudo vote
vote pseudo #3 this would be a straw vote
fos pseudo #4 and here is an fos
i mean i understand what you are trying to accomplish it just seems a little convoluted. seriously, blue equals real vote, purple equals pseudo vote and orange equals fos. i am going to vote orange and blue swirls which is not quite a real vote but is more than a pseudo vote which is much stronger than an fos, right?
but on preview the colors are kind of happening.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 21:19:28 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 21:19:28 GMT -5
neta: can you fine mod folks keep track of this shit for us, please
just needed one more color.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 21:28:40 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 21:28:40 GMT -5
and not that it means shit one way or the other. but this game apparently has a unique voting structure to it. i have no clue what tomorrow will bring but i know that today has a different trigger than that which i am used to.
much like i don't think it to be optimum for powers to be edicted to on how to act i would kind of take the same approach to folks edicting to others on how they should vote or in what color or what not. that sure seems to be a dangerous road to walk.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 21:40:34 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 13, 2009 21:40:34 GMT -5
neta: can you fine mod folks keep track of this shit for us, please . Ha. No.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 21:45:46 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Dec 13, 2009 21:45:46 GMT -5
and not that it means shit one way or the other. but this game apparently has a unique voting structure to it. i have no clue what tomorrow will bring but i know that today has a different trigger than that which i am used to. So you admit you don't know how this voting structure works yet you wish to spend the day with your fingers in your ears repeating over and over "I can't hear you" whenever someone tries to explain the ramifications to you. How does that work for you in Real Life?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 22:04:36 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 13, 2009 22:04:36 GMT -5
and not that it means shit one way or the other. but this game apparently has a unique voting structure to it. i have no clue what tomorrow will bring but i know that today has a different trigger than that which i am used to. So you admit you don't know how this voting structure works yet you wish to spend the day with your fingers in your ears repeating over and over "I can't hear you" whenever someone tries to explain the ramifications to you. How does that work for you in Real Life? actually it works well, thanks for asking. i only know that which i know. i know what the voting structure is for toDay. i've already said that i believe that for toDay having tom be the hammer makes the most sense. i've also said that i think the whole pseudo/straw/fos voting structure doesn't mean a whole lot, to me. i've never been much of an fos'er and doubt that i would become a real big pseudo'er or straw'er just because that's what you want. i totally don't get the 'fingers in your ears" comment. i've been listening and responding on what i believe to be the correct play. you may disagree but that does not mean that i have not been listening and participating.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 13, 2009 23:43:21 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 13, 2009 23:43:21 GMT -5
Hi guys,
I've been reading along, but I need to do a proper reread and start flinging wild accusations out there, now that no one can OMGUS me; anyway, I'll see if I can say something substantive about the various conversations tomorrow night.
Also, I agree with whoever it was that I really really don't want to see anyone voting "because the confirmed Town thinks x is scummy". I've seen that argument turn out well once, actually, but it was on Day 6 or so.
Also also, someone or other asked if my being revealed as Town was a result of a Night Zero action or inherent in my role; it was inherent in my role.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 1:38:21 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 14, 2009 1:38:21 GMT -5
This is the voting system I first played with when I discovered Mafia. I don't see the problem. If 7 people have found someone scummy enough, then why shouldn't they hang? If the votes snowball quickly, with no good reasoning, then that would be addressed the following day, as would a suspicious hammer. Only in LyLo or approaching LyLo do you have to be very very careful about placing hammer -1 hammer -2 votes. On Day one, I think this discussion is a distraction.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 2:17:40 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 14, 2009 2:17:40 GMT -5
A few people have mentioned that they feel this discussion is a distraction. What discussions wouldn't be? If there is one day that game mechanics and general strategy is germane, it's Day One.
luvbwfc, the trouble is if one or two townies decided for some reason that someone is scum and vote for them, there may be enough scum to jump on that vote and drop the hammer and then we have to figure out if it's a bunch of scum on the end or misguided townies. I don't know that it's all that likely to occur. But others do.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 2:27:51 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 14, 2009 2:27:51 GMT -5
A few people have mentioned that they feel this discussion is a distraction. What discussions wouldn't be? If there is one day that game mechanics and general strategy is germane, it's Day One. luvbwfc, the trouble is if one or two townies decided for some reason that someone is scum and vote for them, there may be enough scum to jump on that vote and drop the hammer and then we have to figure out if it's a bunch of scum on the end or misguided townies. I don't know that it's all that likely to occur. But others do. if 5 "me too" votes jump onto a wagon and get someone hammered, then we would have a damn good starting place tomorrow.
|
|
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 14, 2009 2:32:23 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 14, 2009 2:32:23 GMT -5
I think Sinjin's post giving reasons for her proposal helped me understand where she is coming from. I still don't wholly agree with the idea, but I can see what led to it. Skipping over the first three points, because they are all indisputable. 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. This is (I think) the point build on sand. How many Days does it happen that someone attracts even 25% of the vote without some sort of external reason? Most days when there is no detective report, confession or slip don't end in a rollercoaster, but with one player developing a small but significant lead. In later Days, this issue becomes more significant. 4a. Some people (scum) will be able to claim later that they couldn't vote for the lynchee because of the hammer vote constraint.[/qupte]Then they can say that up front, and give their reasons why they would have voted for that player. 5. This limits using the vote record in future days. Unfortunately, yes. This is an entirely valid problem. It's just that the proposed solution takes more time and effort than it is worth, in the early game. 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? Bringing it up was A Good Thing. It helped generate conversation and get the game ball rolling. We might not have agreed with you, but now we've started talking - and that can't be a bad thing, can it? Well, unless you're an anti-registration recidivist.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 3:14:20 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 14, 2009 3:14:20 GMT -5
if 5 "me too" votes jump onto a wagon and get someone hammered, then we would have a damn good starting place tomorrow. We would indeed and I wouldn't complain if that happened. What I suspect is more likely is a slow gain of votes over a few days. Sinjin, ideas aren't bad. Throwing them out is not scummy. We've got a discussion going and we're starting to get info. This will help us and I'm certainly not going to vote someone for simply suggesting something.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 4:13:58 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 14, 2009 4:13:58 GMT -5
The only difference I see with this type of vote system, is that reasons for placing the vote at the time of placing the vote are tres important. This becomes even more so as votes 4 5 6 & 7 are placed. Votes without reasoning are bad and should be challenged
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 7:57:02 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 14, 2009 7:57:02 GMT -5
VOTE COUNT (12.14) - 8:00 AM EST
peekercpa - 1 (Natlaw - #101) sinjin - 1 (drainbead - #113)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 8:45:12 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 14, 2009 8:45:12 GMT -5
vote pseudo#2this is pseudo vote vote pseudo #3this would be a straw vote Wait -- is there a difference between a pseudo vote and a straw vote (besides having to highlight the text in order to read the yellow-on-white of the straw vote)?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 13:43:41 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Dec 14, 2009 13:43:41 GMT -5
I'd like to state up front that, just like the last comic game, I know nearly nothing about the color.
Pseudo votes? I swear this idea comes up everytime there's a slight variation in the voting mechanism. I don't think there's been a single time where it worked or even was wholly agreed to. Personally, I don't like them. Who hammers and when and why is a lot of information, information we shouldn't be giving up. Furthermore, how often, barring a monumental scum slip or detective result claim, does someone really get a ton of votes in a short period of time? To quote IS, "a slow gain of votes over a few days" is a bad thing? If someone hits 5 votes(Today at least), we can be aware that we're close to the end of Day. It's not really all that differnt from it being 12 hours from end of Day.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 15:29:30 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 14, 2009 15:29:30 GMT -5
I have to admit, I'm much more likely to just vote, even knowing I might bring the hammer, if I genuinely believe someone's scummy. I'm not much on FOSes (and I've been tagged for my voting history, by the way, since I tend to vote-hop as I re-perceive the way people are acting); I'd rather get a vote out there unless I've already got a vote on someone I think is Scum and someone else pings me.
That said, for toDay I'm willing to let Tom/Tony bring the hammer. But it's really unlikely I'll be FOSing or straw voting or whatever.
No one's pinging me yet, by the way, but I really don't like attempts to stifle, derail, or neuter discussion.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 15:51:19 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 14, 2009 15:51:19 GMT -5
Hal,
I wouldn't worry about keeping track of pseudo votes. They aren't worth the electronic ink they are written on.
Tom,
You never answered my question. Do you have reason to believe that you can't be trusted beyond Day 1? Also, I don't think voting with you is necessarily a bad idea. Certainly if I have my own view I will express it, but two townies voting together are better than them voting separately even if they both are right.
I thought about designing a game with a vote threshold, but didn't think it would work well. I now remember why. The problem is there is no push to get votes in. No one likes to make a vote on lackluster evidence. No one likes to artificially shorten the Day. On Day one no one will make an argument that isn't wild speculation. Thus people don't vote until they have to. In this setup they never have to. If we don't proactively try to end this Day it could go on for a very long time.
Thus, I'll Vote: Drainbead for being inconsistent on a position early on. Sure she could have changed here mind, but given the lack of available evidence, an inconsistency is about the best I'm gonna find.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 18:28:48 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 14, 2009 18:28:48 GMT -5
and i agree with hawk that without a mod mandated timeframe on when this Day ends and some folks natural proclivity to wait until the last minute this Day could indeed last a very long time. i wonder whether, because of the particular mod, this is something that he cooked up as some sort of game mechanic. i mean could he be banking on town's natural quest for information to have folks start saying something along the lines of fuck it let's just get this over with.
i mean you did the whole war/peace thingie, right (apologies for being so disconnected during that personal fiasco)? which was highly unconventional. i only kind of figured it out after the durn thing was basically decided. i wonder if story has something like that up his sleeve. not war/peace but just different from a motivational standpoint.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 19:01:07 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 14, 2009 19:01:07 GMT -5
Hawk: I'm not going to say anything more about my role for the moment than I've said already.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 20:03:43 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 14, 2009 20:03:43 GMT -5
I agree that not having a specific end time is a different mechanic and might lead to long Days. There was a game on FB that had a slightly different mechanic. (It was probably a pedescribe game). There was a vote threshold that lead to a countdown timer. As a group, we couldn't agree on who to push over the threshold in order to start the countdown. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. There were proposed 'pseudo votes' though, they were in fact real votes to start a timer...and..wow, it was a mess. In the end, we voted for "No lynch" to start the timer and then got on with the Day under a deadline. That won't work in this game. However, can we self-impose a deadline? Perhaps, for toDay only, we can have Tom Scud decide on a deadline and then we can proceed from there? Now, I know, you'll say, what if no one reaches 7 votes by then? Well, as long as enough of us agree, we can switch our votes to that person. (and try to remember when holding someone accountable that it was a procedural vote only. In a similar fashion to how story and I switched our votes in Space Hijack to prevent a tie vote) Either that or eventually some people are just going to get fed up with the lengthy days and either vote or die of boredom. (and hey, if you like lengthy days of nothing, go play on mafiascum, k? )
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 20:30:46 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 14, 2009 20:30:46 GMT -5
Just a warning, my participation may be sparse. This is a busy week at work, and my husband appears to have come down with the food poisoning or stomach flu of death, so I basically have to do everything around the house too. It's 8:30 and I'm just now getting around to eating dinner. Oh, and I'm sick too. And our dishwasher is broken and not fixed until Wednesday, and I have a 10-month-old so there's a crapton of bottles to hand-wash. I'll read, but I don't know how much time I'll have to post. I'm actually cross-posting this to all three games I'm currently in.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 20:47:05 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 14, 2009 20:47:05 GMT -5
I agree that not having a specific end time is a different mechanic and might lead to long Days. There was a game on FB that had a slightly different mechanic. (It was probably a pedescribe game). There was a vote threshold that lead to a countdown timer. As a group, we couldn't agree on who to push over the threshold in order to start the countdown. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. There were proposed 'pseudo votes' though, they were in fact real votes to start a timer...and..wow, it was a mess. In the end, we voted for "No lynch" to start the timer and then got on with the Day under a deadline. That won't work in this game. However, can we self-impose a deadline? Perhaps, for toDay only, we can have Tom Scud decide on a deadline and then we can proceed from there? Now, I know, you'll say, what if no one reaches 7 votes by then? Well, as long as enough of us agree, we can switch our votes to that person. (and try to remember when holding someone accountable that it was a procedural vote only. In a similar fashion to how story and I switched our votes in Space Hijack to prevent a tie vote) Either that or eventually some people are just going to get fed up with the lengthy days and either vote or die of boredom. (and hey, if you like lengthy days of nothing, go play on mafiascum, k? ) and ed i kind of agree with your strategy and think it's fine in theory but in practice may be problematic. we've got the holidays coming up so i think that in and of itself would cause a lag. boy oh boy, i just don't know. having folks show up a day or two later because of rl stuff seems gamey. that and we have a lot of folks that just want to shit or get off the pot. i mean we could really be doing a communal group grunt for a while. i am going to set a personal timeline. one that the rest of you folks can hold me to. i will get a vote down withing 48 hours come heck or high water. i can't tell the rest of you how to play but i will at least establish personal accountability. that way there is something out there.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 20:48:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 14, 2009 20:48:51 GMT -5
neta: want = won't
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 20:50:54 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 14, 2009 20:50:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I think we need some votes down. I've had one in the back of my head for a while, and it being Day 1 I guess I should get it out there:
vote Hawkeyeop for fishing about my role.
|
|