|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 21:18:03 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 14, 2009 21:18:03 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. I wasn't looking for how your role worked. I was looking for information on recruiting. I wanted to know if my plan to have you be the hammer was viable past Day 1. This is the only time in which I know you haven't been recruited, and can thus trust your answer.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 21:27:49 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 14, 2009 21:27:49 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. I wasn't looking for how your role worked. I was looking for information on recruiting. I wanted to know if my plan to have you be the hammer was viable past Day 1. This is the only time in which I know you haven't been recruited, and can thus trust your answer. Of course, if Tom is recruitable, he may want to keep his options open, eh? Or Tom might have some defense against recruitment and may be hoping to be a target Or any of a number of other reasons he might have to keep quiet.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 21:40:22 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 14, 2009 21:40:22 GMT -5
Have to or want to, anyway.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 21:57:38 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 14, 2009 21:57:38 GMT -5
Of course, if Tom is recruitable, he may want to keep his options open, eh? Or Tom might have some defense against recruitment and may be hoping to be a target Or any of a number of other reasons he might have to keep quiet. Well, it is kind of an ethical dilemma there. If a person is currently town, but knows they will become scum should they alert other players now since there current goal is a town goal or go for their known future goal? Anyway I can't/don't want to answer your question is a perfectly acceptable answer. Doesn't mean the question isn't worth asking.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:00:07 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 14, 2009 22:00:07 GMT -5
I wasn't looking for how your role worked. I was looking for information on recruiting. <snipped> wouldn't this be assumptotically close to the same thing?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:02:05 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 14, 2009 22:02:05 GMT -5
fuck fuck fuck.
assumptotically = assymptotically.
what a fucking dweeb i be.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:22:54 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 14, 2009 22:22:54 GMT -5
fuck fuck fuck. assumptotically = assymptotically. what a fucking dweeb i be. Not necessarily. Story said that the method of recruitment adhered to his biases. His biases have been established as not liking good play punished. Ie if you are good townie, you are more likely to be recruited, and therefore have your previous play hinder you. Thus, I think it is possible in this game that if you get recruited your goal doesn't necessarily change. Perhaps a third party just needs to recruit x players or perhaps recruited players have an additional goal. It is conceivable that someone in this game can be recruited and still be trustworthy. I was mostly trying to confirm or deny that theory in asking Tom Scum that question.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:44:18 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 14, 2009 22:44:18 GMT -5
fuck fuck fuck. assumptotically = assymptotically. what a fucking dweeb i be. Not necessarily. Story said that the method of recruitment adhered to his biases. His biases have been established as not liking good play punished. Ie if you are good townie, you are more likely to be recruited, and therefore have your previous play hinder you. Thus, I think it is possible in this game that if you get recruited your goal doesn't necessarily change. Perhaps a third party just needs to recruit x players or perhaps recruited players have an additional goal. It is conceivable that someone in this game can be recruited and still be trustworthy. I was mostly trying to confirm or deny that theory in asking Tom Scum that question. There are too many variables on how recruitment might work. It could be that some players know they are recruitable. It could be some players are unaligned for now and must be sought out by either side. It could be something along the lines of Crimson Glyph where players could refuse recruitment. Lots of things are possible.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:45:10 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Dec 14, 2009 22:45:10 GMT -5
I was mostly trying to confirm or deny that theory in asking Tom Scum that question. (bolding of Freudian slip? mine) ;D I find the discussion of pseudovoting pseudouseless. I think people should not be panicking over "Oh no!!! It only takes 7 people to lynch! What if somebody wanted to vote for the lynchee!!!!!" Usually if there's a rush to 7+ votes on a single person, either the person was investigated as scum or there's a near irrefutable argument out and everybody's going to be voting for X anyway. Furthermore, we don't know if the threshold is going to be the same every day. We could set up this whole pseudovoting system and tomorrow the vote threshold could be 90%. The accountability issue is somewhat trivial too. If a person doesn't vote, people are going to raise eyebrows. If a person doesn't vote two Days in a row, people will start to point fingers. It's just how it goes. And if somebody says "oh, I would have voted for the lynch target but they got hammered before I was around" they still need to explain why they would have voted that way. "Everyone MUST have some sort of a vote on record!" idea is not helpful, in my opinion. Just as you're accountable for voting, you're accountable for not voting. If people woulda-coulda-shoulda all the time, hem and haw, etc., we can analyze that. Everything is analyzable (? did I make up a word?) and we already have FOSes. So that's my two cents.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 14, 2009 22:57:23 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 14, 2009 22:57:23 GMT -5
I was mostly trying to confirm or deny that theory in asking Tom Scum that question. (bolding of Freudian slip? mine) ;D I find the discussion of pseudovoting pseudouseless. I think people should not be panicking over "Oh no!!! It only takes 7 people to lynch! What if somebody wanted to vote for the lynchee!!!!!" Usually if there's a rush to 7+ votes on a single person, either the person was investigated as scum or there's a near irrefutable argument out and everybody's going to be voting for X anyway. Furthermore, we don't know if the threshold is going to be the same every day. We could set up this whole pseudovoting system and tomorrow the vote threshold could be 90%. The accountability issue is somewhat trivial too. If a person doesn't vote, people are going to raise eyebrows. If a person doesn't vote two Days in a row, people will start to point fingers. It's just how it goes. And if somebody says "oh, I would have voted for the lynch target but they got hammered before I was around" they still need to explain why they would have voted that way. "Everyone MUST have some sort of a vote on record!" idea is not helpful, in my opinion. Just as you're accountable for voting, you're accountable for not voting. If people woulda-coulda-shoulda all the time, hem and haw, etc., we can analyze that. Everything is analyzable (? did I make up a word?) and we already have FOSes. So that's my two cents. It's a good point. There is a case where someone might be inclined to not vote. It would be tough to put the 6th or 7th vote on a person while waiting for a potential claim or explanation. And then....miss out when someone else drops the 6th and 7th votes. Of course, stating your suspicions and reasons for not voting at that point can be pretty clear.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 0:20:06 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 15, 2009 0:20:06 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. I wasn't looking for how your role worked. I was looking for information on recruiting. I wanted to know if my plan to have you be the hammer was viable past Day 1. This is the only time in which I know you haven't been recruited, and can thus trust your answer. Technically, it's possible that I've already been recruited by a Day power (that seems gastardly, but in a no-vanilla game, who knows what the balancing issues might be). And intentionally or not, you are in effect asking me to reveal more of my role's powers than I've already indicated.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 0:20:54 GMT -5
Post by tomscud on Dec 15, 2009 0:20:54 GMT -5
And people call me Tom Scum all the time in these games. Once people type in the S C U, autopilot engages.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 1:21:28 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Dec 15, 2009 1:21:28 GMT -5
My tuppence worth - most of which has been said more eloquently elsewhere.
Pseudo votes - can't see the point - either vote or don't, pseudo votes are just a way of clouding the water.
Tom as the hammer - disagree, Tom should allow to vote as he sees fit, and forcing Tom to be a hammer allows for some evasive behavior when justifying votes. To be honest I suspect the hammer will fall when people get to the point of thinking 'fuck it we have to lynch someone today'. If Tom wants to do that , fine, but his call, besides Tom is as likely to be as wrong as most of us if we lynch town.
Recruitment - any chance this could be a two way thing - not just a scum power?
Scum ping wise - Post 42 Pedescribe (now Kat?) - said we should try to avoid a large cascade of role claims - not sure exactly how we do that in a non vanilla game. Is everyone up for a lynch supposed to not claim and go quietly? Post 70 of Pollux where he defended Tom Scuds character by suggesting he was unrecruitable. To suggest that based on comic book history is one thing, to suggest others were subtly undermining a (as of the moment) confirmed townie is a big old smudge.
So VOTE POLLUX OIL
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 1:25:04 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Dec 15, 2009 1:25:04 GMT -5
I think it would be good form to allow people close to the hammer to give some account of themselves prior to anyone dropping it, I just say that as having been the lynchee on the odd occasion whilst slumbering gently in other time zones.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 2:54:30 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 15, 2009 2:54:30 GMT -5
It's true that that is a benefit of this setup in that we can hypothetically hold off on lynching. I hope everyone pays attention to the vote counts and no one drops the hammer without realizing it.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 7:09:14 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Dec 15, 2009 7:09:14 GMT -5
Since he has clarified his thoughts on the pseudo vote idea (that I interpreted him incorrectly as agreeing with it), Unvote: peekercpa I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't drag on Today forever. I think if we end it by Thursday and have the Night done before Christmas. Then we can extend Day two adjust for the holidays. The accountability issue is somewhat trivial too. If a person doesn't vote, people are going to raise eyebrows. If a person doesn't vote two Days in a row, people will start to point fingers. It's just how it goes. And if somebody says "oh, I would have voted for the lynch target but they got hammered before I was around" they still need to explain why they would have voted that way. True, but still there isn't an actual vote placed so that means no commitment to that persons lynch or an alternative with a Night to think up a nice explanation where they would have voted. As has already been suggested, once someone is one or two votes away from a hammer, give that person some time to defend himself before placing the actual hammer. But the moment should also indicate to everyone that the end of the Day is coming and you should get in your summaries and votes asap.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 8:05:32 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 15, 2009 8:05:32 GMT -5
VOTE COUNT (12.15) - 8:05 AM EST
sinjin - 1 (drainbead - #113) drainbead - 1 (hawkmod - #142) hawkmod - 1 (tomscud - #149) Pollux Oil - 1 (Precambrian Mollusc - #162)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 11:14:07 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 15, 2009 11:14:07 GMT -5
Recruitment - any chance this could be a two way thing - not just a scum power? As in, a townie could pull someone off the scum team and make them town? Don't think so, as the now-townie player would have a slight advantage in knowing exactly who his former scum-teammates are.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 20:47:16 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 15, 2009 20:47:16 GMT -5
The Doldrums, also called the "equatorial calms", is a nautical term for the intertropical convergence zone, with special reference to the light and variable nature of the winds.[1] It affects areas of the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean that are within the Intertropical Convergence Zone, a low-pressure area around the equator, where the prevailing winds are calm. The low pressure is caused by the heat at the equator, which makes the air rise and travel north and south high in the atmosphere, until it subsides again in the horse latitudes. Some of that air returns to the Doldrums through the trade winds. This process can lead to light or variable winds and more severe weather, in the form of heavy squalls, thunderstorms and hurricanes.1
1 This is a sarcastic comment based on the amount of information we're generating here (including myself in that). It's a not-too-random article from Wikipedia.2
2 In an ancient game, I was an outed Scum and I posted random articles from Wikiepdia to get myself lynched more quickly by annoying the snot out of everyone.3
3 In no way am I comparing my role in this game to my role in that game. I'm not Scum in this game.4
4 I'm really not, but I don't expect you to believe me yet. Unless you, yourself, are Scum, in which case, you probably believe me.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 20:54:53 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 15, 2009 20:54:53 GMT -5
OK, so I decided I wanted to vote. I looked at our low posters. Nanook was one of them. A very short post talking about pseudo votes. But Nanook is usually very quiet. He'll have well thought out posts with good reasoning as the Day wears on. UNfortunatley, since we're on pace to end this Day in 2011, I'm not sure we'll get much more from him before June. Texcat had 3 posts all about pseudo voting and hammer and they made me yawn. Pollux was one of them, and PCM was another. In fact, PCM voted for Pollux. And the case was a weak Day 1 case. But most Day 1 cases are weak. And as far as weak Day 1 cases are, it wasn't so bad. So, let's get this party started. I can both vote for a low poster AND get someone into the vote lead at Threshhold-5! Vote: Pollux Oil
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 22:09:26 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Dec 15, 2009 22:09:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 15, 2009 22:23:38 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 15, 2009 22:23:38 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. ok, i'll play. if tom is good enough for a hammer then what the hey, he's gotta be good enough for a get go, right? i mean seriously. vote hawk
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 1:50:10 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 16, 2009 1:50:10 GMT -5
ok, i'll play. if tom is good enough for a hammer then what the hey, he's gotta be good enough for a get go, right? i mean seriously. vote hawksorry, what is your reason for voting here? Not understanding your explanation.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 9:19:33 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 16, 2009 9:19:33 GMT -5
Peeker, what was your reasoning in commenting to Tom that you wished he hadn't talked about recruitment? Your posts on the topic don't seem to mesh with the only rationale that makes sense to me, so what were you thinking at that point?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 9:42:45 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 16, 2009 9:42:45 GMT -5
Inner Stickler:<font style="font-size: 12px;">I use the same name everywhere. I'm not going to worry about recruitment at this juncture. Why? It worries me. <font style="font-size: 12px;">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. What do you mean by "any recruitment roles focus on doing what they're supposed to do"? I can't parse that at all. But in any case, this is the second post in which you downplayed the need to think/talk about recruitment, and that bothers me. When I posted my comment about "what are Storyteller's personal preferences", it was in part to see how people responded, as I'm of the opinion that Scum or whoever's doing the recruiting would probably not be eager to talk about it -- it's a closed game mechanic, and that means there are more than the usual faulty-perspective issues in the discussion for those who do know what's up. Plenty of people, including me so far, have not had much to say as regards recruitment, but you're almost the only one to just hand-wave off the whole thing as something we can worry about later. On top of that, this isn't really like you. I remember in the Disney game you caught a lot of low-level flak all the way up until you claimed because of your eagerness to discuss mechanical issues, provide vote counts, and the like, over and above actively Scum-hunting. (He was the Town Vig, for those who didn't follow that game.) But you're not doing any of that this time. <font style="font-size: 12px;">Hi Guys, on the recruitment topic, defo something to keep in mind. In the comics Spider-man started off pro registration and switched. This also pings me as a response to the notion of recruitment; it's just so content-free. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> 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. What do you think of Inner Stickler's subtle undermining of Tom in the post quoted above? Why respond to Bill and not to IS? One more thing I need to check on, then I'll place my vote.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 11:06:12 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Dec 16, 2009 11:06:12 GMT -5
ok, i'll play. if tom is good enough for a hammer then what the hey, he's gotta be good enough for a get go, right? i mean seriously. vote hawkActually, no. I think the " tom hammers" idea has some merit because he wouldn't do so with any ulterior motive, nor would he deliberately hammer early to prevent someone from responding from questions or accusations. He doesn't have any special knowledge (that he's told us about andI'mnotaskinghimtorevealifhedoeshaveany) as to who's scum and who's not. You still need to look at his argument and look at Hawk's post to determine if [you think] tom is right, you just don't have to worry that tom is lying. Some actual thought and analysis behind your own vote would be nice, or even commenting on why you agree with tom's reasoning (if you do) if that's all you got.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 11:23:00 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Dec 16, 2009 11:23:00 GMT -5
I didn't jump on this fully when you first posted it, because I thought I might be misinterpreting what you were saying. But nope, you meant that just the way I read it -- switching someone from scum to town, despite the clear game-break that would cause. Honest mistake? Ok...could be. However, when I think back at the number of honest mistakes I've made, it's amazing how many of them turned out to be not-so-honest. To be clear, I'm not saying you were seriously positing that town might be able to make a scum-to-town switch while knowing this could not work. I'm saying you're scum who goofed while trying to muddy the waters. It's not much -- barely above gut instinct -- but damnit if I haven't come to regret backing off of gut instinct suspicions in previous games. So, lacking a better target (I'm not big on any of the current vote-getters), I'm going to... Vote: PrecambrianMollusc
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 11:42:33 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Dec 16, 2009 11:42:33 GMT -5
This also pings me as a response to the notion of recruitment; it's just so content-free. DOn't see much point in speculating on whys and wherefores of how recruitment could/would work. Based on colour I think it is likely we will have to deal with recruitment, that's all I mean to convey. I'm not sure what extra content you would expect.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 12:21:32 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 16, 2009 12:21:32 GMT -5
OK, so I decided I wanted to vote. I looked at our low posters. Nanook was one of them. A very short post talking about pseudo votes. But Nanook is usually very quiet. He'll have well thought out posts with good reasoning as the Day wears on. UNfortunatley, since we're on pace to end this Day in 2011, I'm not sure we'll get much more from him before June. Texcat had 3 posts all about pseudo voting and hammer and they made me yawn. Pollux was one of them, and PCM was another. In fact, PCM voted for Pollux. And the case was a weak Day 1 case. But most Day 1 cases are weak. And as far as weak Day 1 cases are, it wasn't so bad. So, let's get this party started. I can both vote for a low poster AND get someone into the vote lead at Threshhold-5! Vote: Pollux Oil This really looks like a scum post. Smudge as many people as possible and then vote for the one who might get a bandwagon rolling. Vote: Special Ed
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 16, 2009 13:17:46 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2009 13:17:46 GMT -5
This really looks like a scum post. Smudge as many people as possible and then vote for the one who might get a bandwagon rolling. Or, we could play like you and post rarely and make no real contribution to the game. Then, as we all age and die, whichever person lives the longest (in real life) wins. Provided storyteller bequeaths the game to someone.
|
|