|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 4:21:51 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 21, 2010 4:21:51 GMT -5
This approach is not what I would classify as "fair," but the information is public. Certainly no worse than a random vote at this point. I would like to hear commentary from Sister Coyote, MHaye, Nanook, BillMc and Kat. Do you feel that this is a fair assessment? Do your role preferences for C4 differ significantly from your C3 choices? Why or Why not? For C3 I thought the witch role looked cool, and turned out to be rather dull. For this one I had no preference. You could look at the past role list in numerous ways - about half the folks had a town role as their first choice, but non-town for a subsequent choice -- so I think you are town..or you are not :-) If we are voting for folk based on roles on past games, we may as well vote on who killed you in previous games. Pleo is very, very big on saying what he means and meaning what he says. Idle's information is not of the open setup information we have received. According to the moderator, this means that if Idle is truthful, he is the possessor of his faction's secret power. There are multiple conclusions to be drawn from this: 1. If a player claims to have the Town secret power, then dies and does, we can guess that Idle is non-Town. 2. Conversely, if Idle dies and is Town, we can assume that any other player claiming to have the Town secret power is lying. 3. I am not sure what I think of Idle's revelation. Will post more tomorrow. I guess this info could be the town "power", held by one or more townies. It is unlikely to be held by multiple townies as this would provide a handshake mechanism. However, Idle has a erm, history?, of going out in a blaze of glory early in games, and in general, we don't trust a word that he says, ever. So this could be Pleo messing with us all by giving Idle additional information knowing that we are going to take it with a very large pinch of salt. Given it is 13v12 (town v non-town), revealing the actual numbers on each side could somewhat help the balance.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 6:29:07 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 21, 2010 6:29:07 GMT -5
Well, gosh.
Idle's list is interesting, but it's only useful if we know whether we can trust it or not.
I'm worried by his repeated requests for people not on the list to come forward. It's blatant role-fishing. But what's really interesting is the roles that are missing from the list - Magician, Warlock, Witchdoctor and Vig. These are essentially who Idle is asking to come forward and identify themselves. I can see that the Wolves would be interested to know who to avoid killing, or who might try to kill them. It seems a little sacrificial, but if Idle is right about numbers (and he'd want to be at least partly honest in feeding us a false list) then it might be worth it to flush out roles that will slow down their kills or thin their numbers.
Moreover, if we do get suckered by a false list, then we could be in a lot of trouble. What if we have two Seers, for example? One claims, another believes Idle and so "counter"-claims and we end up mislynching. Possibly twice. Or what if there are only 2 Detectives, and we blithely accept the claim of the 3rd?
I don't see why Idle would have such a list, or why, having it, he'd just reveal it like this. He hasn't really given any explanation for either. But I can see why a non-Town role would like to get us talking about what roles we do and don't have. Pending a good explanation of why Idle got this list, and why he's shared it, I'm very suspicious.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 7:04:03 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 21, 2010 7:04:03 GMT -5
@ Eureka 2 questions. 1. While I'll agree for the moment that fewer members does decrease the likelihood of crosskills, isn't the additional team member (and subsequent reduction in the number of enemies) more than offset that? In other words, isn't it better to start with more members no matter what? 2. You don't think 7 Wolves is excessive? In a straight Scum game, isn't 7 Scum in a 25 player game a little high? Now make it 7 Scum vs just 13 Town assuming the other sides will. I do not believe that it is better to start with more members no matter what. I believe that in Mafia, nothing scales linearly. I suspect that a 3 or 4 person team would generally be more powerful than a 2 person team, but that nothing is absolute in Mafia--and especially in Conspiracy. 7 wolves may be excessive. It's been too long since I read a discussion on balancing Mafia games to be sure. Especially since this is Conspiracy, where for Town, it has never been enough just to Lynch perfectly, some help from the assorted Scum to kill each other or Lynching players from various factions in the right order to control their power has been needed as well. I'm not at all sure I believe these numbers make sense and are balanced. But I believe that Pleonast believes that the numbers he used make sense and are balanced.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 8:23:30 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 8:23:30 GMT -5
You know, sacher, this is one of the most fascinating examples of role-fishing I've ever seen. With detailed backup yet. I suppose that's a valid point, but not the goal of the request. (1) I want to assess whether or not holding three individuals to a pattern is valid or not. I'm more interested in gravitation towards Town/non-Town rather than specific roles. (2) I wanted to assess the reactions of the other players on the C3 list. I find it interesting that Sister Coyote had requested a Town role in C3 and is concerned with affirming a possible affinity for playing Town. If she were scum, then I think she would jump at the opportunity to 'look Town' based on this information. It would have been a very good opportunity for a scummy Sister Coyote to take -- yet she does not. I'm leaning "Town" regarding Sister Coyote. Of course there could be other reasons for a scummy Sister Coyote to deny herself the opportunity. She should be protecting one or more of the Three. But I'm inclined to think Sister Coyote's reaction is that of a Townie.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 8:30:02 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 8:30:02 GMT -5
Sach, that is an interesting plan you've made there. Interesting because not only are you suggesting that we lynch for meta reasons, but that we lynch to send a message to the moderator, as opposed to ya know, making any attempt to progress towards winning this game, or at the very least providing a framework which will hint at motives of other players, so that we can be better informed toMorrow. This paragraph is so off the mark I don't even know where to begin. Sending a message to the moderator is not the point and is unnecessary anyway. The die has been cast. Whether the identified three are scum or not is a done deal. Whether or not relying on this data is a good idea is known to Pleonast already. If it hit 3 scum, then eventually we will know that. If it was way off the mark, we will know that eventually as well... no matter what we do. All we can do now is decide whether or not we want to act on that information. Also, whether or not we act on this information does "hint at motives of other players," that's the whole point! You act as if using the information (or not) will happen in a vacuum. This is not correct. We already have multiple opinions on the matter... you know possible motives. It pains me when people poke at things with thoughtless comments that state that deny genuine attempts at gameplay while little of their own.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 8:36:41 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 8:36:41 GMT -5
Also, the "It's better than random/nothing" meme about day one voting should probably die. It's an obvious statement, that truly says nothing, and sounds a lot like "I don't know who to vote for". If you are voting for someone and "it's better than random" is your only (relative) justfication, then you aren't trying hard enough or there haven't been any non fluff posts all day. Plus if you're town you've just opened the door for an opportunistic and easily justified vote from a scum player. My phrasing "no worse than random" is my soft way of saying "better than random." I think this distinction, especially so early on Day One is a good thing. Perhaps it irritates you, but I like to point out when I collect a set as whether or not it exceeds the expected value of the number of scum. For example if I pulled out X, Y, and Z and said, I think one of these is scum, let's lynch one, then that statement is not better than random. One should expect one of X, Y, and Z to be scum just based on pure numbers. What I'm asserting, is that of the three named players, I think that set has a higher probability of being scum rich (i.e., not just one, but more likely to be all scum and more likely to have only one town among the three). Anyway, distinguishing from 'random' is a good exercise. Furthermore, the "better than random" statement is an assessment of the situation, not the justification for the idea. The justification comes from whether or not one accepts or rejects the notion that someone could have an affinity for playing scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 8:51:13 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 8:51:13 GMT -5
so I think you are town..or you are not :-) If we are voting for folk based on roles on past games, we may as well vote on who killed you in previous games. Facetiousness aside, this kind of thinking drives me nuts. It's like saying if you buy a lottery ticket either you will win or you will not while completely ignoring the underlying mechanisms and probabilities involved. The second sentence is a mischaracterization of the idea. We are not killing based on assigned roles. We are scrutinizing based on publicly available, non-random personal preferences. Not even close to the same thing -- even if we elevate "scrutiny" to "kill outright."
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 8:57:26 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 8:57:26 GMT -5
The list: Group A - Request all scum roles FlyingCowOfDoom storyteller special ed
Group B - First choice scum, but mixed overall MHaye Kat
Group C - First choice town, but mixed overall Sister Coyote Nanook BillMc
The responses FCOD - not happy with the idea for obvious reasons Sister Coyote - not happy with the idea, suspicious of role-fishing; good opportunity for SC to climb on board to look town, but she does not. Nanook - acknowledges the idea, admits similar thinking, but does not comment deeply about his choices Kat - Explains her reasoning for the list construction: pick the cool roles (makes sense to me as Kat was role heavy and not faction heavy, also longest list). Also puts up possible explanations for Ed, FCOD and storyteller. storyteller - understands the theory, denies the conclusions special ed - doesn't remember previous motivation BillMc - also chose based on what looked interesting, claims no preference for current game MHaye - no response (literally)
I'll note here that some players selected roles, and some selected factions (which is the same thing in some cases). Anyway, I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the responses interesting in and of themselves.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 9:01:16 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jul 21, 2010 9:01:16 GMT -5
... being held in Nanook's Dungeon of Pleasure and Pain." This has my curiosity aroused. Is there a PG-rated synopsis? In Gastard Arena, Nanook was the jailer role. He essentially was a special 3rd party detective/blocker (actually, the entire game was individual 3rd parties vs. town, even scum were all against each other). Each night (starting Night 0) he could select one player to put in his jail for the next Day/Night cycle. If that person was the Serial Killer, he would be told. (His win condition was to find the Serial Killer before the SK found him.) He chose me Night 0, thereby I was out of the game for all of Day/Night 1. Something that happened that Cycle was brought up on a later Cycle and his quote of me in his sig was my explanation of how it couldn't have been my fault. Oh and.... BRRRAAAAAIIIINNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 9:10:09 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 9:10:09 GMT -5
Okay, I have extra information that I think everyone should know. I was told this, in my PM: So there you go. Seven wolves, total. That's a lot. Regardless of Idle Thoughts's alignment, the list he offered is likely to be mostly true. If Idle Thoughts is scum, then there is only a tiny amount of wiggle room for lying and the list is probably 23-24 of 25 correct. For example, if Idle were Cabal, he could conceivably lie about the number of Cabal, but could not cover for more than one (i.e., the real number is 3, but he said 2). A small lie would not be uncovered until after Idle was already dead, but bigger lies could be revealed sooner rather than later and get Idle into trouble. Based on the reported number, I think the intention was to balance 7 wolves with 3 Detectives, pitting Town against Wolves and putting Cabal and Undead on the fringes to benefit from the crossfire. The low number of Cabal is making me think that Cabal must have some sort of protection power. They can't be balanced any other way. I'm guessing either night kill immunity or ability to protect one Cabal each night. I doubt they would have lynch immunity since that would be of limited benefit and overall frustrating for everyone. The idea that Cabal can recruit makes sense too, but I think recruitment is too weak to make up for small numbers (especially since the recruitee can refuse). According to the moderator, this means that if Idle is truthful, he is the possessor of his faction's secret power. This actually make me believe Idle Thoughts more. In my opinion, Town has been over powered in the previous games. If I recall correctly, in C3 Town had seriously beefed up Witchdoctors who were very hard to kill. Reducing the Town power makes good balance sense. Furthermore, if a dossier of roles is a scum faction's power, they got screwed. The early reveal doesn't bother me too much. My thinking is that with high expectation for a death rich Night One, the latest Idle would want to sit on the information is Night One. Perhaps he could have waited to see if he could catch a false claim Today, but whats done is done. I'm sure Idle Thoughts thought about the reveal before doing it. I'm guessing he has his reasons.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 9:12:23 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 21, 2010 9:12:23 GMT -5
If Idle is to be believed, then the Cabal is very likely to be an extremely dangerous enemy in spite of their small numbers. But if Idle is to be believed, then we have a more relevant conclusion to draw: Pleonast has stated explicitly in the Rules that: Pleo is very, very big on saying what he means and meaning what he says. Idle's information is not of the open setup information we have received. According to the moderator, this means that if Idle is truthful, he is the possessor of his faction's secret power. There are multiple conclusions to be drawn from this: 1. If a player claims to have the Town secret power, then dies and does, we can guess that Idle is non-Town. 2. Conversely, if Idle dies and is Town, we can assume that any other player claiming to have the Town secret power is lying. 3. I am not sure what I think of Idle's revelation. Will post more tomorrow. This just isn't true. Last game the Vampires each knew the identity of one Necromancer. That was the Undead secret power, and it wasn't held by one player. Assuming Idle is telling the truth, it is entirely conceivable that his factions secret power is knowledge about the game's structure. While he knows the faction distribution, another player might have a different tidbit about the game's setup. With the information we currently have, we simply can't make the conclusions you outlined. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 9:19:36 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 9:19:36 GMT -5
My phrasing "no worse than random" is my soft way of saying "better than random." I think this distinction, especially so early on Day One is a good thing. Perhaps it irritates you, but I like to point out when I collect a set as whether or not it exceeds the expected value of the number of scum. For example if I pulled out X, Y, and Z and said, I think one of these is scum, let's lynch one, then that statement is not better than random. One should expect one of X, Y, and Z to be scum just based on pure numbers. What I'm asserting, is that of the three named players, I think that set has a higher probability of being scum rich (i.e., not just one, but more likely to be all scum and more likely to have only one town among the three). Anyway, distinguishing from 'random' is a good exercise. Furthermore, the "better than random" statement is an assessment of the situation, not the justification for the idea. The justification comes from whether or not one accepts or rejects the notion that someone could have an affinity for playing scum. My position is that any reasonably defensible justification makes the implicit claim "better than random", based largely on my belief that random is the worst possible method for voting. But now that I think about it I have seen voting strategies which were essentially random but dressed up to look like something else. So consider it point taken. After a little sleep, I have to admit that I'm starting to put some mental stock into Idle's list, for a couple of reasons. 1. It's a big risk, as Idle has pointed out, if you have a role not on that list, you can claim such, and it negates the list entirely. And would tend to indict idle. 2. It's a lot to gamble on a role fish. Which if I reject the list, looks like the most plausible goal for the gambit. There are some roles conspicuously missing from the list, but they might be missing from the game.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 10:19:06 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 21, 2010 10:19:06 GMT -5
BillMc-- are you playing the same games I do? What's this "We never believe a word he says, ever?"...I seem to remember I'm usually believed, for the most part..although the way I go about things people usually disagree with so it causes a bit of ruckus every time. But in the end, I've usually always found to be having told the truth the whole time (save for the times I've played scum--Mafia V and one other about two years ago).
Stan:
Repeated? I didn't even say it once. What I did say, to Ed, was just to ask himself if he's on it...not say it out loud.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 10:23:39 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 21, 2010 10:23:39 GMT -5
But in the end, I've usually always found to be having told the truth the whole time (save for the times I've played scum--Mafia V and one other about two years ago). So basically, you always tell the truth unless you're scum. Right? How is that different from anyone else? I wouldn't say "we can't believe a word you say, ever", I'd say "we can't believe anything ANYONE says, until they're confirmed." --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 10:33:59 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 21, 2010 10:33:59 GMT -5
What I meant was I don't remember a time that (as Bill would put it) I was singled out as not being believed, ever, in every game.
I'd agree with you in the assessment that it would/should apply to everyone.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 10:49:27 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 10:49:27 GMT -5
Okay, I have extra information that I think everyone should know. I was told this, in my PM: So there you go. Seven wolves, total. That's a lot. Ok, having no specific knowledge of previous "Conspiracy" games (I'm not dedicated enough to go back and read three previous games that I didn't play, just because it might help with this one) I'd think it likely that Hoopy was zombificated by our necromancer. Otherwise I got nothing (yet). Second thought: the official term for the humans is "town", but it strikes me that we don't really have a "town". Might as well refer to the people who had to eliminate the MoDD and HoC in the last game as "town" (they were all third-parties). Third thought: If Idle's list is accurate, there will most likely have to be temporary alliances between wolves, undead, cabal and townies, in order to get rid of the biggest threat to the lesser groups at the time. Fourth thought: Interesting, Idle. Although (presuming you are being truthful), it's hard to judge whether or not exposing that info was necessarily prudent at this point, i suppose time will tell. Sach, that is an interesting plan you've made there. Interesting because not only are you suggesting that we lynch for meta reasons, but that we lynch to send a message to the moderator, as opposed to ya know, making any attempt to progress towards winning this game, or at the very least providing a framework which will hint at motives of other players, so that we can be better informed toMorrow. (Not directed at sach, in particular, but an observation) Also, the "It's better than random/nothing" meme about day one voting should probably die. It's an obvious statement, that truly says nothing, and sounds a lot like "I don't know who to vote for". If you are voting for someone and "it's better than random" is your only (relative) justfication, then you aren't trying hard enough or there haven't been any non fluff posts all day. Plus if you're town you've just opened the door for an opportunistic and easily justified vote from a scum player. I don't like Sach's plan either (although note I'm not saying Sach is scummy for suggesting it), because it strikes me that the players in the last Conspiracy game may very well have had a complete attitude change since playing the last Conspiracy game. But the wording of that second paragraph is interesting. It feels aggressive enough to make me think that if Red knows who the other members of his side are (which is to say, he's not town) then it seems pretty unlikely that Sach is one of them. My thoughts: I'm OK with voting for someone on the grounds that they wanted to be Scum in a previous iteration of the game, although not keen on it both because what they wanted then may not be what they wanted now and because as someone with no history in this game, I'm a little leery of what message someone may decide my lack of history means. I'm much less ok with voting for someone in an effort to send a message to the moderator--if you don't like the way the moderator is setting up the game, just don't play it (don't sign up for it). I'm baffled as to why Idle Thoughts would have been given the extra information he claims he's been given. And I don't think it should be trusted. It makes no sense to me that the Cabal has only two members, unless Pleonast is trying to protect the Cabal from crosskills by reducing their numbers in advance. Seven werewolves is not an obviously excessive number, given the frequency with which werewolves end up dead. Here's a post that also interests me. So let's take it bit by bit... - First paragraph: you're ok with this plan, but then immediately propose two objections to it (the second of which has to do with how people view you directly)? - Second paragraph: where is Sach saying he wants to "send a message" by voting this way? He's objecting to the posting of players' past preferences, yes, but there's nothing overtly linking that to his suggestion of how to vote. Seems to me that what he's actually saying is that this kind of metagaming is a tool he'd prefer not to be available; but while it is available, he has to use it. Sach? Is that fair? - Third paragraph: I can think of several reasons why Idle might have been given the information, and at least two previous games in which someone has been given similar information on this very board. Not that you could be expected to know about previous games, but your statement there is pretty far-reaching. - Fourth paragraph: This one I partially agree with, to the extent that it's curious that there are only two members of the Cabal in Idle's post. But once again, you come up with an explanation yourself for it. Feels fence-sittingy. Plus, if you haven't played before or read the previous games, are you really in a position to judge how many Cabal is "reasonable"? This post feels scummy to me. Eureka seems to be suggesting direct suspicion / mistrust of Idle and Sachertorte for reasons that, aside from the "two cabalist" thing (which is genuinely curious, and does make the Cabalists look underpowered in relation to the rest), don't seem to stand up. He's also suggested that one of his reasons for disliking Sachertorte's suggestion is because of how he'd be viewed, as someone who hadn't played in a previous Conspiracy game. Whereas Sach hadn't actually said anything about how to view non-past players. That looks to me like Eureka is worried about how he'd be viewed himself - generally speaking, that's a scumtell, as town aren't as paranoid about being suspected unless they're actually accused. Finally, he's said he's ok with Sach's plan, but then given reasons why he's not; plus he's suggested Idle is wrong about the number of Cabal, and then given a reason why he might not be. In my experience scum don't like to cut potential ties early on, and often don't commit too much. Again, in my experience, it's a common scumtell. Right now I think it's likely that Eureka is a member of either the wolves or undead (he'd be less likely to discuss the numbers of cabal if he were one of them). I also think it unlikely, based on this post, that Idle and Sach are in the same group as Eureka is. I do however think it possible that Eureka is in the same group as Red is, because it was Red (not Sach) who made the suggestion that Sach wanted to "send a message", and Eureka seems to be accepting this without question or mention of Red himself. So for that reason, vote Eureka.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:17:56 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 21, 2010 11:17:56 GMT -5
Couple of things: 1. It's a big risk, as Idle has pointed out, if you have a role not on that list, you can claim such, and it negates the list entirely. And would tend to indict idle. No. It would throw the list into doubt, yes, but until Idle's been dead for a couple of days (or the person claiming a role not on the list has been dead for a couple of days) and is therefore confirmed, that's all it does. (he'd be less likely to discuss the numbers of cabal if he were one of them) I disagree. Cabal would totally do that. As would the Wolves. As would the Undead. This is my other Day One oh yeah that deserves a mention: Scum would totally do that. What seems illogical to those of us working as individuals with little information might seem completely logical to group brains.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:18:02 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 11:18:02 GMT -5
Moley, you might've smudged me and I don't like that so much. First thing: despite sach's protestations and yours, he did indicate that he wanted "to send a message". To quote sach (underlining added): Side Note: I don't think the choices should have been made public, or it should have been a one shot deal. If this works, I'm fairly certain that the practice of allowing requests will end (and should end). Even if it doesn't work, I still question the practice. Secondly, eureka used my phrasing, for reasons known only to them. You could accuse them of snuggling, as that's what it appears to be me, but the similarity in phrasing does not indicate that we are on the same team. Thirdly, I'm not sure if the smudge is deliberate or not. Based on your claimed ignorance of how Conspiracy works I'm not sure if you realize that you can multi-vote. You can vote for me. If you believe I'm not town, then you should probably do so, otherwise I will be forced to believe that you are trying to cast aspersions without action behind them.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:21:29 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 11:21:29 GMT -5
A side note and a question for moley: How does aggressiveness equate to knowing who's on my side and who's not?
You've tossed this out there as a truth, but I don't see it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:30:33 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 11:30:33 GMT -5
@ Special Ed Could Hoopy Frood have been in one of those categories before he became a zombie? So maybe it's only 12 town or maybe only 6 wolves. Although I'm not sure how Hoopy could become a zombie in one Night. In looking at the possible roles, it seems like he would have needed to be dead before someone could make him a zombie.
Or did you mean that the 3 undead included the 1 zombie?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:38:51 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 21, 2010 11:38:51 GMT -5
Ok, having no specific knowledge of previous "Conspiracy" games (I'm not dedicated enough to go back and read three previous games that I didn't play, just because it might help with this one) I'd think it likely that Hoopy was zombificated by our necromancer. Otherwise I got nothing (yet). How can Hoopy have been zombified by our necromancer when he’s not even supposed to be playing? Pleo states that this is a 25 player game, no more, no less. There’s no indication in the Night Zero thread that he confirmed getting a role, so unless Pleo did it to help with balancing belatedly on numbers, I’m not really sure what to make of it. Added to the fact that the rules state no powers could be used Night Zero. I’m quite perplexed about the lynching rules. Half of the players need to vote the same person for them to be lynched otherwise no lynch, that seems like quite a tall order to me. Was it like that in previous games of conspiracy? (not having played or deemed to go back and read up on them). Though having just read reds post, the multi voting thing maybe gets us there in the end.
|
|
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
Jul 21, 2010 11:43:12 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 21, 2010 11:43:12 GMT -5
Morning all.
I'd like to remind everyone of two things.
1. Holding a grudge against someone for selling you out in the previous game, or some other one before that, is silly. You're probably (or, in this game, possibly) shooting yourself in the foot. After all, you and the person you sell down the river might be teammates who need to be best buddies.
2. Just because I haven't come out and told you not to hold grudges yet doesn't mean you can hold grudges.
Don't hold grudges.
Except for the one against Zombie Frood, who's craving for cerebral matter means I have to deal with a nasty horizontal scrolling problem. Can you please make your cries just a bit shorter and/or smaller? Thank you.
Yes I sent in a list of preferred roles to Pleo. The role(s) you might expect to see on it - the one faction I have not played - were conspicuous by their absence because I made a conscious decision not to ask for them. (I figured someone might go back and look at past games and see what I have been - which, for those who don't want to do that, were Werewolf, Witch and Cabalist respectively.)
I'll reread the thread after tea (and a review of the colour mini).
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 11:50:57 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 11:50:57 GMT -5
Seems to me that what he's actually saying is that this kind of metagaming is a tool he'd prefer not to be available; but while it is available, he has to use it. Sach? Is that fair? Correct. First thing: despite sach's protestations and yours, he did indicate that he wanted "to send a message". To quote sach (underlining added): Side Note: I don't think the choices should have been made public, or it should have been a one shot deal. If this works, I'm fairly certain that the practice of allowing requests will end (and should end). Even if it doesn't work, I still question the practice. No, I didn't. "This" in "If this works" refers to whether or not current alignments correlate to alignment requests from C3. "this" does not refer to any actions on our part or rely on any messaging to Pleonast. Whether we lynch based on the information doesn't matter, the facts are set regardless of what we do.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -5
No, I didn't. "This" in "If this works" refers to whether or not current alignments correlate to alignment requests from C3. "this" does not refer to any actions on our part or rely on any messaging to Pleonast. Whether we lynch based on the information doesn't matter, the facts are set regardless of what we do. Yes I understand what you are saying but why you are using this fora to say that is beyond me. What you are saying is that if the information you've compiled correctly indicates a scum player, then Pleo or other moderators in future games might be more reticent in taking requests or publishing requests (or they might be more reticent since the possibility exists for this type of reasoning regardless of if it produces results or not). This is a message. The addressee is Pleo and future moderators, the text of message is "Don't take requests anymore, it leads to metagaming (and conversations with red, which are frustrating for anyone who has tried)." And to be perfectly clear, which is what I thought I was being earlier, but apparently not (you = sach): 1. You sending a message to pleo, does not tell me anything about your alignment. 2. I don't like the plan as I don't think it will lead to scum lynches, but I don't think it makes you any more likely to be scum. Maybe a little twinge toward the town side, since I think scum would be less likely to float the idea, but it's more null than not. (Hence no vote). 3. (deprecated) Your meta gaming strategy would not yield useful information. This is deprecated because it's been so astutely proven by you to generate information.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 12:21:46 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 21, 2010 12:21:46 GMT -5
Rules clarification
Hoopy Frood was not a member of any faction, but is now definitely a Zombie that counts towards the Undead victory condition.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 12:30:19 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 12:30:19 GMT -5
Yes I understand what you are saying but why you are using this fora to say that is beyond me. What you are saying is that if the information you've compiled correctly indicates a scum player, then Pleo or other moderators in future games might be more reticent in taking requests or publishing requests (or they might be more reticent since the possibility exists for this type of reasoning regardless of if it produces results or not). This is a message. The addressee is Pleo and future moderators, the text of message is "Don't take requests anymore, it leads to metagaming (and conversations with red, which are frustrating for anyone who has tried)." You specifically objected to lynching to send a message: Sach, that is an interesting plan you've made there. Interesting because not only are you suggesting that we lynch for meta reasons, but that we lynch to send a message to the moderator, as opposed to ya know, making any attempt to progress towards winning this game, or at the very least providing a framework which will hint at motives of other players, so that we can be better informed toMorrow. Red, you are wildly inconsistent in your position.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 12:35:59 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 21, 2010 12:35:59 GMT -5
Second thought: the official term for the humans is "town", but it strikes me that we don't really have a "town". Might as well refer to the people who had to eliminate the MoDD and HoC in the last game as "town" (they were all third-parties). Can you clarify this statement, particularly in regards to the assertion that "we don't really have a "Town"?"
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 14:10:47 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 21, 2010 14:10:47 GMT -5
Do you think that's a scummy statement?
vote: bufftabby[/color]
Moley's wrong, but the potential scum motivation for such a comment is so lacking that it seems you are just trying to provoke a suspicious-looking response. Particularly given the pre-existing challenge from Red Skeezix.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 14:31:19 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jul 21, 2010 14:31:19 GMT -5
Don't hold grudges.Except for the one against Zombie Frood, who's craving for cerebral matter means I have to deal with a nasty horizontal scrolling problem. Can you please make your cries just a bit shorter and/or smaller? Thank you. Very well: ONE SIZE SMALLER BRRRAAAAAIIIINNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 14:45:21 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 21, 2010 14:45:21 GMT -5
|
|