|
Post by Rysto on Mar 3, 2012 7:25:33 GMT -5
I have geen given my role PM. FoS Drain. Word of Mod is that there are no post restrictions in this game. [/b], was that link intended as a roleclaim? [/quote] I deny having any connection whatsoever to the Joker. ;D
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Mar 3, 2012 9:47:47 GMT -5
PM rec'd.
|
|
|
Post by SBrOwn on Mar 3, 2012 9:58:36 GMT -5
How do I subscribe to this thread and what does that mean? Will it flood my email?
FoS? Que?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 10:07:26 GMT -5
FoS stands for finger of suspicion. It's used when you either can't vote or have already placed your vote on someone else you think is scum and don't wish to move it but you'd like the other player to know that if you had two votes, they'd have the second.
Subscribing to the thread means you get an email sent to whatever email address is connected to your profile any time someone makes a post to the thread. People who don't hang around idlemafia very much but check their email frequently find it helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 3, 2012 10:42:43 GMT -5
I need to know how to subscribe to this ka-jigger. My nightly ritual when I get home from work is to check my emails for updates on games, and I do not want to space this one.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 10:48:05 GMT -5
If you scroll up to the top of the thread, right by the page listing it says Search and Bookmark. Click on Bookmark and then click on Profile. In your profile click on the Bookmarks tab and from there you ca choose if you want your bookmarked threads to send you an email notification, board pm or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Gadarene on Mar 3, 2012 10:59:05 GMT -5
Confirmed!
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Mar 3, 2012 11:06:16 GMT -5
confirming
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Mar 3, 2012 11:28:50 GMT -5
I have geen given my role PM. FoS Drain. Word of Mod is that there are no post restrictions in this game. Yes, but that's not to say that drain won't give herself a post restriction. C.F. the quote on players being more gastard on themselves than the mods. Gut, don't glame daingead, this was a typo I gelieve. Right. That's enough of that. --- Elsewhere : Has a definite start for Day 1 been given or are we waiting for a given number of confirms?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 3, 2012 11:31:08 GMT -5
Does this mean "can choose death instead of recruitment", or some other similar consequence, or does it mean that a recruitee can just completely ignore the recruitment attempt? Unfortunately, management must with-hold further comment on this question. Alignment changes are always voluntary, is all we can say.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 11:32:49 GMT -5
I bet that means it's a choice between changing alignments and death.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 3, 2012 11:35:12 GMT -5
Twenty four of 31 players have now confirmed. Ideally, I'd like to wait until all players have confirmed to start Day One (and to answer all the outstanding clarifications received by PM), so I'll give it a little extra time. For now, though, feel free to act as if the game has started in the Night Zero thread.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 3, 2012 11:38:23 GMT -5
Confirming.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 3, 2012 11:38:47 GMT -5
C.F. the quote on players being more gastard on themselves than the mods. Gut, don't glame daingead, this was a typo I gelieve. I am greatly amused that you know the term "gastard" but don't know its origin. In the original Batman game, Drain faked having a post restriction where she had to substitute Gs for Bs.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Mar 3, 2012 12:08:38 GMT -5
C.F. the quote on players being more gastard on themselves than the mods. Gut, don't glame daingead, this was a typo I gelieve. I am greatly amused that you know the term "gastard" but don't know its origin. In the original Batman game, Drain faked having a post restriction where she had to substitute Gs for Bs. And here I was, thinking we were going to woosh the new(er) players entire. I was aware it had a legacy. I thought that some player had an actual post restriction in a game. Did not know that it was Batman and Drain. It looks like I wooshed myself. I'm off to a great start. [Or I'm playing like Meeko always plays. Take you pick.]
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on Mar 3, 2012 12:10:59 GMT -5
It looks like I wooshed myself. I'm off to a great start. [Or I'm playing like Meeko always plays. Take you pick.] I think those are one and the same.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Mar 3, 2012 12:15:14 GMT -5
It looks like I wooshed myself. I'm off to a great start. [Or I'm playing like Meeko always plays. Take you pick.] I think those are one and the same. There is no other way to read this post, than to take it as the comment you intended it to be. I think I am off to a great start as well. Thanks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Mar 3, 2012 12:30:00 GMT -5
Confirming.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Mar 3, 2012 12:46:21 GMT -5
OK, some thoughts, to hopefully help conversation get started:
First, a couple of general points. I consider editing and lurking to both be valid reasons for votes. They're not necessarily the best reasons (hopefully players will be able to find better ones as the game progresses), but they're still valid. But they're also really, really easy to avoid. If nobody lurks and nobody edits, then we won't need to even worry about it. And there's never any need to lurk or to edit.
And I always catch some heat for this, but I always vote for people who I think are behaving anti-Town, because anti-Town is pro-Scum. The only case where anti-Town and pro-Scum are not identical is when there are third parties who are trying to hurt Town, too, and in that case we need to get rid of those folks anyway. Admittedly, an anti-Town act might not necessarily be motivated by trying to help Scum, but I can't judge motivation, only actions.
Now, some more specific musings on this setup: With a game this large, we almost certainly have multiple kill effects in play, and I really hope that a nonzero number of those are in the hands of Town. This makes it even more important than normal to express suspicions and make cases for more people than just the one person you're voting for: A Town player with a kill power probably appreciates some guidance on whom to use their power on. Please note that I am not saying that we should leash any vigs we might have: Ultimately, anyone with a power has the final say on how to use it, and they can and should disregard any or all of the rest of us if they think that's best for Town. But it's still better if they have some guidance they can choose to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 12:51:15 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, if you're a non-mandatory town vig, would you use your power every night or would you wait until a few Days into the game?
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Mar 3, 2012 12:51:30 GMT -5
Oh, and since someone is bound to ask eventually: I do not plan to deploy my vote analysis program in this game. Sometimes it works really well, but sometimes it works terribly, and I do not know how to easily distinguish which is happening, which makes it of strictly limited usefulness, and probably not worth the trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 12:53:51 GMT -5
I just think it's funny because I seem to recall it always suggesting my alignment is the opposite of what it really is.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 3, 2012 13:15:51 GMT -5
Chronos, what are your thoughts on policy votes? Pro or anti-town?
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 3, 2012 13:49:25 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, if you're a non-mandatory town vig, would you use your power every night or would you wait until a few Days into the game? I am personally of the opinion that the Town should vote each Day on the Vig target, just like they do for the lynch. However I am aware that this is a rather controversial position.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 13:57:30 GMT -5
Interesting. What do you suggest in case the vig appears to ignore town's consensus? I assume in the case of an outed vig, you would lynch them or inform the doc, if you think one exists, not to protect the vig at night and hope scum take the vig?
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Mar 3, 2012 14:04:54 GMT -5
OK, some thoughts, to hopefully help conversation get started: First, a couple of general points. I consider editing and lurking to both be valid reasons for votes. I am a habitual editor. My reason is, I generally type so fast and without proofreading, and sometimes in a too-large block of text that I have spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm also a severely impatient man and will only bother to proofread after I've hit the post button. It's a nasty habit but I am not reforming anytime soon. That said, I will never, ever edit a post for any other reason than the above. I don't change votes or posted thoughts/ideas by doing so. Sometimes I add an additional comment instead of double-posting, but if it is preferred I will double post here. Lurking is a fine way to avoid being caught via post or vote analysis, and I believe it is decidedly anti-town. Conversely, I've recently been exposed to a play style that is far, far more verbose than my own massively wordy style, and it clogs up the danged game and frustrates the heck out of players. If people talk so much that others cannot think, that's just as anti-town to me as not posting. I will policy lynch a person who posts as much as the rest of the others in the game combined, for my own sanity's sake. I advise others to join me. I would also prefer to lynch folks who are intentionally not playing in the earliest possible portion of the game, because that is the time of the game where we are at the highest percentage random chance of lynching a town. I'd prefer to "waste" those long-shot lynches on pro-town policy, if we do any policy lynches at all, early on. After that point, if someone goes from verbose to silent, that's scummy, not inactivity. And by then we should have weeded out the actual inactive posters so it's less of a tough call whether or not to punish that behavior. I tend to dislike policy lynches in the first place but time and time again I have been shown that it is occasionally necessary. I refuse to lose another game to someone who didn't even lift a finger to defeat me, while I ran around like a headless chicken frantically trying to find them. I consider it gutless. If someone is going to employ that strategy they'd better employ it knowing full well I intend to kill them for it. We'll see who moves first in that instance. Maybe I decide they're really inactive. Maybe I think they're full of it. In any case, the threat of death for inactivity should be backed with force. That should encourage our scummers to show up and say something scummy like they always do. Bottom line though, a policy lynch is essentially expending time and effort lynching bad behavior which the scums can easily avoid. It's also a convenient way of not having to come up with actual suspicions for votes, and a convenient way of not having to lie about your reasons for suspecting someone. Therefore policy lynches are generally ineffective and counterproductive. It's like a gambit pawn in chess. Sure, you can afford to lose the pawn if you get some kind of compensation. Gambit away too many pawns for no compensation and all you've done is reduce your own manpower and assist the enemy in destroying you. Policy lynches are usually sacrifices that work against the town unless the benefit outweighs the very real material loss. It could deter scums from behaving badly, it might not. It could deter townies from behaving badly, it might not. At the end of the day, the game is won when we lynch scums. So policy lynches being good or bad depends on which side is behaving badly. In my experience, it's usually the town side which has their heads up their butts. So policy lynches are more often than not, bad. Exceptions abound. Yes, but actual scummy people may be acting very pro-town. As such, I will always prefer to lynch someone I suspect, over someone I merely consider a bad townie. Intentionally anti-town posting where I think the person is not a townie at all... default lynch. But again, lynching scum is better. I don't disagree with the above, but as a general strategy comment, if a vigilante should choose to kill folks who are second or third place for the lynch and survived, that would probably encourage the scums not to "soft bus" their partners with votes they don't believe will result in a lynch, since it will therefore render it more probable that their partner will die anyway. That could lead to less bussing and more votes on townies, which will be incorrect votes, which should make it easier to catch them via OMGUS votes and examining bogus reasoning in general. As with any mafia game, there are counters to every strategy, but I think the risks involved in countering this move outweigh the benefits the scum could reap and will likely result in more of them getting caught via standard means or simply through self-annihilation. I endorse it.
|
|
|
Post by astralrejection on Mar 3, 2012 14:48:08 GMT -5
Consider me confirmed!
Just a heads-up, it's tough for me to play at work, so I'll be somewhat less verbose during work hours, and more talkative nights and weekends.
What was the mix of town, scum, and various third parties last Batman game?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 3, 2012 14:54:39 GMT -5
Town - 13 Scum - 6 Third Party - 6 Total - 24
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Mar 3, 2012 15:23:35 GMT -5
Confirmed.
Inner, that list adds up to 25. There was a hidden player clearly!
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 3, 2012 15:24:21 GMT -5
But it's still better if they have some guidance they can choose to ignore. <snipped> this is how i deal with my wife.
|
|