|
Post by tomscud on Jan 20, 2010 19:00:20 GMT -5
All right, vote time. You guys are a bunch of sharks; I'm not seeing much solid to grasp onto right now. I'm not sure what to make of Hawkmod's joke/breadloaf; I'm going to withhold judgment for the moment.
One thing that strikes me is that if there is scum-directed recruitment, they'd love to see a mass claim. I'm seriously pinged by IS, not only because he brought it up for the first time today, but because he hid behind a confirmed town in his first defense of the idea.
I went back and reread his Day 1, and his vote of luvbwfc (339) seemed pretty weak; a "let's move this day towards its conclusion" vote without a whole lot behind it.
I also saw this (#386):
(in response to luvbwfc's claim, and his note that the goblin could be recruitable if he died)
Peeker proceeded to take that hint and run with it like 50,000,000 miles; it could be innocuous speculation; it could be someone deliberately throwing Town off the trail.
vote Inner Stickler
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 20, 2010 21:10:12 GMT -5
Change the batteries in your scumdar. I hid behind nobody when I brought up mass claiming. I mentioned that Ulla suggested it only to show that it was an idea that had the support of one known town. I'm still not really against it because it would be a different tack. Town hates mass claiming. It hates it with a passion and people who suggest it always get lynched. Scum count on this and don't bother suggesting it. If we're going to get tied up in knots about things scum might have, then we're not going to get anywhere. The scum might have an unlynchable strong man. Oh no! Maybe they have a telepath who can get copies of players' Role PMs. Gasp! What if, what if, what if. What if we took a gamble and made a move the scum weren't expecting and won the game? Right now, we're getting our butts kicked. Did you play in the Heroes game on GB? Same sort of setup with no possible role list or anything. There was a mass claim on Day 3 that kicked scum in the nards and made us lose the game. The scum may have clever cover roles but if we pool our data we may find discrepancies in the data that would lead to scum. As opposed to your method which is to flail and hope for the best.
And if a day lasts 18 freaking real life days, you can bet your sweet bippy I'm going to vote simply to end the day! How is that fun for anyone?
As for me, I'm going to
Vote: Sister Coyote
She's been remarkable restrained in her posting and has yet to my recollection made a real case on anyone. I think she suffers from trying to pin scummyness on townies.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 20, 2010 21:10:50 GMT -5
It strikes me that Tom has, by diverting the mass claim discussion, made the single most pro-Town post I've seen in this game so far. If you're Scum, bra-freakin'-vo. If you're Town, way to step up to the plate. I like yourcase against IS, another player who has been vaguely bothering me all game. I'm not prepared to change my vote yet, but I'd definitely like to hear what IS has to say in defense.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 20, 2010 21:12:10 GMT -5
Jinx.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 20, 2010 21:13:26 GMT -5
Addendum, mass claiming forces scum to adhere to certain lines of behavior. For example if a scum roleblocker claims town roleblocker and the claimed doc is blocked then the roleblocker has some 'splaining to do. This is how mass claiming can help us. If you still don't want to do it, fine. But if your only objection is that it may lead a hypothetical scum role to power roles, then you're not playing mafia, you're playing ostrich. News flash, scum have been trying to figure those out from Day 1 and they probably have a watcher or tracker role giving them lots of info on who's visiting whom. We need information. A mass claim is one way of getting it.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 20, 2010 21:15:00 GMT -5
How can Tom Scud be scum? He already stated on Day 1 (that being the one day we could trust his towniness) that he was unrecruitable ergo he is still town now, on Day 4.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 20, 2010 21:18:10 GMT -5
wooooooooo
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 20, 2010 22:48:37 GMT -5
IS - I just got home from major surgery today. I posted that this would be happening when I signed up for the game, and again last week in the going to be away thread. It's nit real convenient for me, either, but I haven't seen anything posted since Thursday. So vote me if you like, but you're barking up a seriously wring tree if you do.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 21, 2010 1:05:40 GMT -5
I remember reading about your illness, (which by the way, I am hoping goes away quickly and you return to the best of health) but it's one of those things that got buried under other stuff. But I'm not talking about simple participation. According to my spreadsheet your postcount for this game is at the middle to high end of the range.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 21, 2010 5:04:07 GMT -5
Addendum, mass claiming forces scum to adhere to certain lines of behavior. For example if a scum roleblocker claims town roleblocker and the claimed doc is blocked then the roleblocker has some 'splaining to do. This is how mass claiming can help us. If you still don't want to do it, fine. But if your only objection is that it may lead a hypothetical scum role to power roles, then you're not playing mafia, you're playing ostrich. News flash, scum have been trying to figure those out from Day 1 and they probably have a watcher or tracker role giving them lots of info on who's visiting whom. We need information. A mass claim is one way of getting it. But the converse is also true. As an example, say that there is a town rolebocker, and they claim truthfully. And that there is a also a scum roleblocker who lies. The scum roleblocker then blocks someone, the town roleblocker gets the blame etc If recruitment has not yet happened, then a mass claim will, as Tom said, will allow the scum to make a much more informed decision about who to recruit. Tho I've been thinking about Peeker's situation. He had to kill someone then replace them - you could view this as "fair" as the numbers on either side wouldn't be changed by his choice (tho the powers available would). I'm wondering if there is a similar "fair" mechanism to Peeker - did Hal sacrifice himself to recruit someone else?
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 21, 2010 6:35:10 GMT -5
How can Tom Scud be scum? He already stated on Day 1 (that being the one day we could trust his towniness) that he was unrecruitable ergo he is still town now, on Day 4. oh yeah. I started 3 games at the same time, 2 of which are finished now. I need to reread this game when I get a chance because I've forgotten most of it.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 21, 2010 8:47:53 GMT -5
I was hoping that Natlaw would have posted some more analysis - he presents it way better than I do.
So we started with 19, so there are probably 4 scum. Peeker was essentially 3rd party and chose town. The Green Goblin appears to be 3rd party.
So initially: 13-4-2
So we're at 7-3-1, or 6-4-1 if scum have recruited.
Possible scenarios:
If there were originally 5 scum, then its 5-5-1 and we are at lylo.
If its 6-4-1 and the GG can choose sides, and sides with the scum, then it's pretty much lylo again, scum would win N4 with a successful kill.
If it is 7-3-1, and we mislynch, and scum kill successfully tonight, then its 5-3-1 for Day 5
We've quite a few folk who are hardly participating. PCM has hardly posted at all since the start of the game, SisterC's access is sporadic (hope you are feeling better), MHaye is a lot quieter than usual.
Votes have been cast on the vocal players, and apart from Peeker's kill of Kat, the kills have been on vocal players. So we've either got scum trying to keep under the radar, or we've got townies who aren't supporting town with their vote.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 21, 2010 12:39:04 GMT -5
Tho I've been thinking about Peeker's situation. He had to kill someone then replace them - you could view this as "fair" as the numbers on either side wouldn't be changed by his choice (tho the powers available would). I'm wondering if there is a similar "fair" mechanism to Peeker - did Hal sacrifice himself to recruit someone else? I'd be rather surprised if it was a switchoff that brought a new scum in but eliminated another. Hal wasn't really under fire as far as I can tell so they wouldn't gain anything by losing him for someone else. I suspect there's a one-shot killer or something out there or else Hal ran afoul of a paranoid gun owner type.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 21, 2010 12:54:41 GMT -5
Just for fun, here's a list of living players organized by total post count from great est to least. I suspect a good chunk of the scum are hanging out in the second group and I highly recommend any town players with deletorious actions target those players.
drainbead - 54 Inner Stickler - 51 Sister Coyote - 44 Natlaw - 43 tomscud - 42 nphase - 36 Hawkmod - 33
BillMC - 21 Mhaye - 20 Precambrian Mollusc - 12 redskeexiz - 9
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Jan 21, 2010 13:46:30 GMT -5
I was hoping that Natlaw would have posted some more analysis - he presents it way better than I do. So we started with 19, so there are probably 4 scum. Peeker was essentially 3rd party and chose town. The Green Goblin appears to be 3rd party. So initially: 13-4-2 So we're at 7-3-1, or 6-4-1 if scum have recruited. Possible scenarios: If there were originally 5 scum, then its 5-5-1 and we are at lylo. If its 6-4-1 and the GG can choose sides, and sides with the scum, then it's pretty much lylo again, scum would win N4 with a successful kill. If it is 7-3-1, and we mislynch, and scum kill successfully tonight, then its 5-3-1 for Day 5 Thanks for the compliment ><. Your first scenario is five scum with a recruit - I don't think that would be balanced. peeker was 'fair' as you say: he would likely pick the strongest team but as a vanilla make that team stronger. The Green Goblin alignment choice doesn't seem to be fair with the available information: with one kill (or lynch in this case) two town were lost (unless the GG chose town of course). Perhaps it was balance by Kat!'s extra kill or generally town was stronger. Perhaps there is a scum who can choose sides to mirror the town (GG) and pfk (peeker) who could do so (but he would have to be a solo scum like amrussell in Undying War or he could reveal the rest right away when switching). So 6 town - 4 scum - 1 pfk means worst case lynch or lose Today only in case of a mislynch and two town kills next Night. With 7-3-1 it's maybe lynch or lose Tomorrow (6-3 or 5-3 rest vs scum). A mass-claim would be latest Tomorrow I think. Today it could be safe to lynch a lurker in my opinion but an extra scum Night kill would buy us a mislynch in case of four starting scum (and no recruit). Not if we started with five then it would be 5-3 Tomorrow on that case. But if the extra kill last Night was from PFK no guarantee he will want kill to scum again.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 21, 2010 14:21:42 GMT -5
Just for fun, here's a list of living players organized by total post count from great est to least. I suspect a good chunk of the scum are hanging out in the second group and I highly recommend any town players with deletorious actions target those players. drainbead - 54 Inner Stickler - 51 Sister Coyote - 44 Natlaw - 43 tomscud - 42 nphase - 36 Hawkmod - 33 BillMC - 21 Mhaye - 20 Precambrian Mollusc - 12 redskeexiz - 9 Nice smudge.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 21, 2010 15:00:04 GMT -5
Today it could be safe to lynch a lurker in my opinion We might not be at LoL, but we certainly aren't winning. I don't think we have a safe lynch to play with, and would rather not waste one on the lurker lottery. I don't see what a mass claim gets us. If anyone has useful information they should probably share it, but I see no point of claiming for the sake of claiming. We have too little information to connect the dots.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Jan 21, 2010 15:27:35 GMT -5
It is safe in the same that a mislynch doesn't lose the game right, but I wouldn't like to lynch a lurker a lynch or lose. I might as well get a vote in.
I don't consider PCM a lurker, more like complete away.
MHaye definitely seems to be (though he did mention being busy real life). Day one he made a case against peeker and luv (nanites aren't working), but since then only about technicalities (confirm cover roles in Evil Dead, a comment about mass claim and recruitment Today, some advice who drainbead should investigate Yesterday).
Vote: Merestil Haye
Red Skeezix has somewhat low profile but has been more active than MHaye, I don't feel BillMc has been lurking.
Hawk, still like a better explanation what your statement about Hal Briston was all about. I don't see a sheep reference so not some fluff right?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Jan 21, 2010 16:15:21 GMT -5
There is a time and a place for lurk votes. When there is a strategic reason: to remove the possibility of a missing possible counterclaim or when reducing an unconfirmed or uninvestigated pool if a game progresses to that point. Otherwise, to me it looks like trying to motivate others into voting out of ennui, which can easily lead to mislynches. If you can't come up with a more compelling reason to vote except them being quiet, then you don't think they are scummy. Then why vote for them?
Vote: Natlaw
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 21, 2010 17:24:13 GMT -5
Just for fun, here's a list of living players organized by total post count from great est to least. Counting what, exactly? How can anyone check your figures if you don't tell us what they're based on?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 21, 2010 17:38:38 GMT -5
Total number of posts in the game threads. People were talking about vocal players and I wanted to give a concrete view of how much people are talking.
Billmc, in my experience, scum hang out on the ends of the bell curve. We've been lopping off the top a bit and not finding anything so I'm wondering about the viability of searching at the bottom. Frankly, I think having less than 20 total game posts on the Fourth Day of a game is insulting to the moderator and the other players. If your participation is that low, why'd you sign up?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 21, 2010 18:21:27 GMT -5
Total number of posts in the game threads. Thanks for the reply, although it didn't give me what I was looking for. Perhaps I should have been clearer. What threads do you consider to be "game threads"? I don't want to make a count from a different set of threads, then come back and accuse you of lying when we haven't been looking at the same data. Back when we first started playing here (as a group) there were some discussions about what was called the Pseudo-Random Hypothesis (PRH). It's probably in Malacandra's game. The PRH is that the Mafia group will tend to adopt a range of posting styles; that is, some will be prolific, some will be relatively quiet and so on. However, the actual distribution will not be random. Left to themselves, the Mafia will tend to distribute themselves roughly evenly among the range of styles, so no two Mafiates appear to have the same playstyle. An even distribution isn't random, but to people who don't think about it, it appears to be. All that is my way of saying that there might well be a Mafiate in the high-posting group still. Also, perhaps you should have checked Hal's postcount - since he's a known Mafiate, and my impression is that his postcount was low. He might have been the lurking Mafiate.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 21, 2010 19:04:46 GMT -5
Any thread within the Ryker's Island forum whose title begins with Day or Night excepting Night Zero. I've found it tends to be more setup than game. I understand that back in the day when people would actually play the games they signed up for, you'd see these spreads of scum from high to low. But the trend that I've seen over and over is mafia players hunker down in the lower end of the spectrum. Maybe not so much here but it's almost endemic at GB and I find it frustrating. If I ever design a game it will have a mechanic that randomly eliminates a player from the bottom 5% or so of posters. If playing the game is that low on your list of priorities, I'd rather make it simple for you. *Puts soapbox away*
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Jan 21, 2010 20:22:35 GMT -5
I've got a couple of things that I've been thinking about, but trying to see any patterns in past days.
Nphase's hawk vote: That vote stinks, I didn't really think about it much until now, but there it is. A possible breadcrumb or a possible joke being incorrect does not strike me as a very good reason for that vote. If Natlaw wasn't trying to possibly waste a whole day, and mess with the information from voting and suspicions by encouraging lurk votes, I'd be voting for nphase. FOS nphase.
Total Lost Possible breadcrumbing: I disagree with Natlaw's hypothesis that she was breadcrumbing something about all those players. This is meta but I checked polluxo's last login and it was dec 31. That means that there was no activity from him for day 2 or night 2, so even if it was a day and night investigative power it would have been max 3 results, day 1(po), night 1(po), day 3(tl). She could have been breadcrumbing any of those players or just giving her outsider first look opinion, I guess time will tell on that.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jan 22, 2010 2:20:53 GMT -5
If I ever design a game it will have a mechanic that randomly eliminates a player from the bottom 5% or so of posters. If playing the game is that low on your list of priorities, I'd rather make it simple for you. *Puts soapbox away* Some folk are very verbose - e.g. peeker posts like it is going out of fashion no matter what role he has - and other folk are relatively quiet. I don't particularly care either way as long as when folk do post it is relevant. Folk have tried games with minimum posting rules, and all it really ends up with is folk posting fluff or being repetitive just for the sake of a post count. Personally I find many games on the Dope fall into this category - people post for the sake of posting.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 22, 2010 8:08:11 GMT -5
VOTE COUNT (1.22) - 8:05 AM EST
nphase - 1 (drainbead - #13) Inner Stickler - 1 (tomscud - #30) Sister Coyote - 1 (Inner Stickler - #31) Mhaye - 1 (Natlaw - #47) Natlaw - 1 (redskeezix - #48)
---------
PLEASE NOTE: As it appears to be necessary, a 7-day deadline is instituted as of this post. Day Four will end at 8:00AM on Friday, January 29th (unless any player receives six votes before that time). If there is no vote leader at 8:00AM on 1.29, the Day will continue until there is, at which point it will end instantly.[/b]
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 22, 2010 8:45:29 GMT -5
I've got a couple of things that I've been thinking about, but trying to see any patterns in past days. Nphase's hawk vote: That vote stinks, I didn't really think about it much until now, but there it is. A possible breadcrumb or a possible joke being incorrect does not strike me as a very good reason for that vote. If Natlaw wasn't trying to possibly waste a whole day, and mess with the information from voting and suspicions by encouraging lurk votes, I'd be voting for nphase. FOS nphase. Really? If we're going to go there, then FOS you and Drain both for apparently finding nothing suspicious in it at all. And Drain is right, absolutely right, that a coroner result should be in hand before anything much is made of it, but given that Hawk has been here since the last time I was and has said nothing about the situation at all, that's not exactly raising my confidence level in him. On a different topic, I don't understand your vote for Natlaw. He may have encouraged lurker voting, but when it came right down to it, he voted for MHaye, who even if he is unlikely to be the Green Goblin himself (the outright statements that he is not would seem to make that a losing proposition), has nevertheless been pinging me for the exact reasons Natlaw pointed out -- extremely low levels of participation on anything of substance beyond getting luv killed. It's a solid vote, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 22, 2010 11:39:02 GMT -5
I don't have enough fir a vote, but I do have the following information:
As of the end of Day One, Tom Scud's allegiance hadn't changed. As of the end of Day Two, peeker's allegiance had changed from what it was when he started the game. As of the end if yesterDay, MHaye's alignment hasn't changed.
Don't know if or whom I'm going to investigate toDay - and yeppers, it's a Day action. So all y'all have fun with that.
Oh, and IS? OMGUS.
Vote: inner stickler for an opportunistic vote on me that probably seemed "safe" at the time and whose reasoning he contradicted just a few posts ago when I was not in his second group (to be regarded with suspicion).
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 22, 2010 12:39:11 GMT -5
You wound me.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 22, 2010 12:57:04 GMT -5
SisC, why claim now?
|
|