Post by SBrOwn on Mar 11, 2012 8:31:56 GMT -5
Special Ed: The Early Game: Day1
(Please let me know if any posts should be added or were mistaken) (Or if you can make this look prettier or link to the posts rather than my spoilers, that would be nice too)
Reply 41: Ed edit's his post to "Brooklyn" from something. Amusing that this is the post that would end up killing him. Best scum tell ever!
Reply45: Chronos votes Ed (of note, Ed taunted Chronos in Post 42 to vote for him)
Reply 46: Meeko votes Ed
Reply 47: Cookies votes Chronos
I don't find a handshake-like proposal suspicious in and of itself, but I do kinda think proposing it and then actually going through with it in virtually the same post with no discussion from anyone else is either suicidal or shit-stirring, both of which I do kinda find suspicious.
Vote Chronos for now. Combined with a pretty baseless vote for Ed it is enough for me.
Her ReasoningVote Chronos for now. Combined with a pretty baseless vote for Ed it is enough for me.
Reply 49: Pollux defends Ed 's Playstyle.
Reply 53: Nanook wonders if Ed has a Power restriction based on post count (ala the Joker in Arkham 1).
Reply 55: Cookies- notes that power restriction on post count would be like a post restiction, which story said there was none of. (Not quite a defense of Ed , but it addressed something that was directed at Ed ). (This goes on for a few posts with Dirx about what's a post restriction and not).
Reply 62: Meeko notes Ed may simply have been Drunk posting rather than having a power restriction based on posting.
Reply 66: Rysto notes rather than lynching Ed right now when he's begging for votes, we should let the Vig handle him or discuss lynching him in the future. He also speculates Ed may have a power that charges up by gaining votes. His words:
[In response to Meeko's "Is drunk posting Pro-Town]
You guys are intent on pushing all my buttons Day One, aren't you? The answer to this question depends on Ed's alignment. If Ed is Town, then his actions here certainly don't look townie. But if he's not Town, then he's piling up so much negative attention right now that in the end, he's hurting his team more than the noise is hurting town.
However, I find it hard to believe that Ed would just do this for no reason. I honestly can't believe that he's picked up two votes so far when he's literally begging for them. If he continues like this I'd be more than happy to see the Vig step in, but I have a feeling that he's got some kind of power that activates by being voted for, so let's not fall for this gambit yet. If he's still carrying on in a couple of Days and we don't seem to have Vig, then it makes sense to talk about lynching him.
You guys are intent on pushing all my buttons Day One, aren't you? The answer to this question depends on Ed's alignment. If Ed is Town, then his actions here certainly don't look townie. But if he's not Town, then he's piling up so much negative attention right now that in the end, he's hurting his team more than the noise is hurting town.
However, I find it hard to believe that Ed would just do this for no reason. I honestly can't believe that he's picked up two votes so far when he's literally begging for them. If he continues like this I'd be more than happy to see the Vig step in, but I have a feeling that he's got some kind of power that activates by being voted for, so let's not fall for this gambit yet. If he's still carrying on in a couple of Days and we don't seem to have Vig, then it makes sense to talk about lynching him.
Reply 73: Meeko questions Rysto on Ed and asks would Rysto vote for him if Ed was not a bomb.
Reply 78: Chronos addresses Rysto's thoughts (spoiled above) on ed
Reply 80: Inner Stickler defends Ed 's Playstyle. His post:
Believe me, this is Ed's new playstyle. It's annoying but he doesn't seem inclined to change.
Reply 86: GnarleyCharlie posts, and addresses his thoughts on Ed: that his playstyle in a null tell. His words:
3. Special Ed's posts
i've played with him several times including after his playstyle change. it seems something he does regularly both as Town and scum. i think it's a null tell.
Reply 87: Peeker votes for Chronos for his reasoning behind voting for Ed, but notes he's not doing it to defend Ed:
egad.
and i think ed addressed this but ....
so we should vote him as long as it's not a "pile on". we've got to deal with eventually but just not in a majority situation? right? but it's scummy not to vote him? right? jeebuz, that's convoluted even for me.
vote chronos.
p.s. this is in no way meant to endorse anything ed may or may not be trying to accomplish 'cause it just looks like a hammered townie wailing away at the keyboard.
and i think ed addressed this but ....
so we should vote him as long as it's not a "pile on". we've got to deal with eventually but just not in a majority situation? right? but it's scummy not to vote him? right? jeebuz, that's convoluted even for me.
vote chronos.
p.s. this is in no way meant to endorse anything ed may or may not be trying to accomplish 'cause it just looks like a hammered townie wailing away at the keyboard.
Reply 88: Silver Jan notes Ed 's playstyle isn't particularly scummy: Her words:
I was rather confused by Chronos' post too. We need to deal with Ed sooner rather than later but don't all vote for him. If you have a vote on Ed you obviously think he's scummy so why don't you want people to vote for him?
At the moment I don't find Ed particularly scummy, that could change but right now I think he is just playing in his new style.
At the moment I don't find Ed particularly scummy, that could change but right now I think he is just playing in his new style.
Reply 89: Dirx notes Ed's Playstyle is a null tell: His words
Yeah, someone who hasn't played in longish time chiming in on Ed's posts here: It's not a new posting style, and it's certainly not a lack of tactic or whatever. It's fundamentally very similar to peeker's, in that it stirs up shit, and then he picks out details in the aftermath. It works for him. Whether he's town or scum or whatever remains to be seen, and his style is a null-tell, as gnarlycharlie says.
Reply 105: Total Ullz shares her thoughts on Ed- gist of it is she's okay with the votes on Ed. Her words:
2. Ed - wauw - nice to read you're winning more and enjoying the game New style indeed. I regret not being around to see the lovely old you turn into the lovely new you
The editing... yeah, well, what can I say. You did annoy me on that one. First time ever I think. Maybe I should try and work on a new style as well. Or not
3. The votes on Ed. I don't have a problem with them so far. It's early Day 1 and I can see why some would like to make sure they had a vote down on an anti-town playstyle yet not willing to take it to a lynch. It's like a Lynch-A-Lurker-vote. You put it down while stating that you're still looking elsewhere. And if a bandwagon starts you're ready to drop it to see what's going on before you replace it or place it elsewhere.
Reply 111: Idle Thoughts defends Ed 's playstyle [Gist: null Tell]. His words:
Ed strikes me as playing as he always does, which to me is a null tell.
I actually voted for him in a recent game (before this one) where I thought he was acting like he usually didn't...but in this game, all I've seen is the typical Ed.
[/spoilers]
Reply 115: Askthepizzaguy makes a lengthy post that ends up voting for Peeker for peeker saying nothing about ed, and notes that about Ed's style: "i remain unconvinced that either of those traits equates to scum or not town" Here's his whole post as it's hard to sum up:
sure he's annoying - i've been saying that for years. and sure he gets in folks grill. i remain unconvinced that either of those traits equates to scum or not town.
peeker, you have taken a bold stand on special ed, in that you've taken no stand.
matter of fact i consider that using that as any component for voting for someone is about scummy as hell. it's too fucking easy and lazy.
But you find votes for ed to be scummy.
You'd think that voting for someone you have no lean on would lead to... perhaps... a lean? Shake loose some informations, perhaps?
But then you keep going and say this.
What point are you trying to make anyway?
Pardon, excuse me.
What the fuck point are you trying to make, anyway? We must not vote for special ed, you have no lean on ed, and there's cursed gold in your rich crap nuggets?
You stink of trying too hard to be wishy-washy while taking a stand against voting someone for being themselves, on day one no less. Maybe someone is trying too hard to act like their usual self. One of you or special ed are scum. Since defending a townie ed also makes sense, you have two possible motives for not wanting to encourage ed's death. But really, either one of you is fine with me.
Ed's noise is grating on my nerves, and you'd think incessant nonsense posting would be the first thing on ed's list of things not to do lately.
I nominate and Vote: peekercpa for being full of golden crap nuggets in my completely un-humble opinion.
Reply 120: Total Ullz asks Asks to clarify why he believes either one of you [ Ed or Peeker] is scum from his post above.
Reply 121: Peeker clarifies his stance about Ed to ed:
Reply 124: peeker defends himself vs. AskthePizzaGuy (after Ed asked Peeker what he thougt about Ask's post in 123) (Summary- Peeker feels AskthePizzaGuy is full of shit- reply 125 to ed)
Reply 126: Gadarene FOS PizzaGuy for his "either peeks or ed is scum" post.
Reply 128: InnerSticker defends Ed by noting he has gone through his posts and notes in His words
Reply 171: Meeko defends his vote on Ed.
Post 180: InnerSticker notes the Vote count:
"By my records it stands at:
Mahaloth (1): Inner Stickler
Special Ed (2): Chronos, Meeko
Chronos (2): Cookies, Peekercpa
Peekercpa (1): Pizzaguy"
Reply 181: PizzaGuy address Ullz Question About either Peeks/Ed being scum. Again, his wordy post is here:
I know some players like to think in pairs. But this one I have a problem seeing. Could you explain it to me a bit more?
Scum don't like being overt in defense of their partners, so I have found that they will typically do one of the following:
1) Aggressive defense- attack someone else, with suspect timing. Build a new case so that it overshadows the other case and maybe draws more votes.
2) Not-a-defense defense- defend them by having no opinion and questioning others' opinions about them. It's pretending not to have an opinion by simply not showing strongly either way, but the tell is when the person argues that we should be changing our votes or behavior anyway, and for reasons such as "your votes lack reasoning".
Okay, but it's day one. Sound reasoning is a pipe dream until I at least see everyone vote once or a townie ends up dead via murder. It's taking a principled stand where none is necessary, let's just vote for "I need to vote" reasons, and sort out the bullshit reasoning at a later date.
Peeker is doing a number two, the "not a defense defense" and that's why I'm calling him out on potentially being full of shit.
Will a townie do this? Yes, but it's bad form, and this is why.
I've played with peeker before. The fact that he's being clear and communicative with his wishy-washiness doesn't win him any brownie points with me. It just means it's easier than usual to understand his non-stance.
I hail from boards where the day ends in 24 or 48 hours, and having played on boards where there's more time than that, I don't know what to do with myself. However, I have taken to pressure voting because I've got plenty of time to do that. More stuff to analyze later.
Peeker's response to my vote+reason seems normal, for him. But I don't expect him to really freak out if he's scum over one whole vote.
I do note that his response is that he hates the various bullshit reasons why folks vote for folks.
My response is tough cookies. You'll get that a lot more on day one. The people who complain the loudest that the reasons for the case are wrong, are the ones who particularly hate that the case is still correct. Nothing burns my ass more than being correctly nailed as scum for non-reasons. At least point out where I was lying or made a stupid mistake.
I'm on the look out for that kind of frustration, as it does indicate guilt. Townies should be familiar with getting voted for bullshit reasons, because when you're a townie, every reason you're getting votes is wrong. Suck it up n stuff.
Strategy-related:
It will be helpful for later analysis and also just for pressuring scum in general if people who aren't voting voted for some people who have no votes. With days this long, you can actually have a lengthy "nomination" process, where people endorse others for death. Gets people on record. Then we can discuss as a group which of the nominees really needs to die.
I've been eager to try that in a game this size with the kind of time we have. I think it's potentially a game-winner but haven't had the chance to implement before now.
Reply 194: Scathach asks Meeko to clarify why he voted for Ed.
Reply 196: Mahaloth weighs in on Ed (He's not suspicious): His words:
Ed: It's just ed goofing off, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he actually was more sensible in the last Doper game. I found him supportive of me(I was Town) and suspected him....correctly. It was Thrill of the Chase Mafia. I don't find him suspicious at all right now.
Reply 199: I weigh in my thoughts on Ed : i find him suspicious at first, but I note that it may be his playstyle, which others have mentioned is usual for him. I FOS Ed but do not vote Ed . My words:
My thoughts right now- I think scathach sorta hits it for me. My initial suspicious were for Special Ed and Chronos, but I think 1. its because they're the ones talking the most. Granted SE has been posting a lot of weirdness so it's hard to read him....
-My initial vote would have gone that way- because it doesnt seem like a normal style, and it does bother me a lil' bit- especially since his posting is nearly double like the next guy. Which as Pollux mentioned could tie into the idea of a role that works with posting limits (Which doesnt seem like a Posting restriction, but more like a power that depends on how other people post). So that makes me leery, but then like 4-5 people have defended Special saying this is actually how he plays, and he can grate on people's nerves with this style.
--So I feel less inclined to vote for Special because it does not seem like every scum would just stick up for special, that doesn't seem smart, and this seems like a smart board. So I feel like maybe my own squicky feelings on Special Ed might just be his style grating on me vs. him actually being scummy (bringing it back to Scat's point- would i be voting for him because he acts anti-town/bothers me vs. because i think he's scummy).
So I think right now, I guess I'd FOS Special Ed? but not vote for him.
Post 207: Pleo posts his RoleClaim and things get off Ed's Playstyle and more into Pleo's actions.
I actually voted for him in a recent game (before this one) where I thought he was acting like he usually didn't...but in this game, all I've seen is the typical Ed.
[/spoilers]
Reply 115: Askthepizzaguy makes a lengthy post that ends up voting for Peeker for peeker saying nothing about ed, and notes that about Ed's style: "i remain unconvinced that either of those traits equates to scum or not town" Here's his whole post as it's hard to sum up:
After saying this:
sure he's annoying - i've been saying that for years. and sure he gets in folks grill. i remain unconvinced that either of those traits equates to scum or not town.
peeker, you have taken a bold stand on special ed, in that you've taken no stand.
matter of fact i consider that using that as any component for voting for someone is about scummy as hell. it's too fucking easy and lazy.
But you find votes for ed to be scummy.
You'd think that voting for someone you have no lean on would lead to... perhaps... a lean? Shake loose some informations, perhaps?
But then you keep going and say this.
it's kind of like the old prospectors. they went through a crapload of mud to find a couple of nuggets of gold. but i don't think they cursed the mud. they understood that it was a component to riches.
What point are you trying to make anyway?
Pardon, excuse me.
What the fuck point are you trying to make, anyway? We must not vote for special ed, you have no lean on ed, and there's cursed gold in your rich crap nuggets?
You stink of trying too hard to be wishy-washy while taking a stand against voting someone for being themselves, on day one no less. Maybe someone is trying too hard to act like their usual self. One of you or special ed are scum. Since defending a townie ed also makes sense, you have two possible motives for not wanting to encourage ed's death. But really, either one of you is fine with me.
Ed's noise is grating on my nerves, and you'd think incessant nonsense posting would be the first thing on ed's list of things not to do lately.
I nominate and Vote: peekercpa for being full of golden crap nuggets in my completely un-humble opinion.
Reply 120: Total Ullz asks Asks to clarify why he believes either one of you [ Ed or Peeker] is scum from his post above.
Reply 121: Peeker clarifies his stance about Ed to ed:
you seem to be getting heat for the same sort of shit that i typically get heat for. i am not defending you. i am condeming those that would condemn others because of their play style and/or approach. you just happen to be getting flack for behavior that i remain unconvinced makes you not town.
Reply 124: peeker defends himself vs. AskthePizzaGuy (after Ed asked Peeker what he thougt about Ask's post in 123) (Summary- Peeker feels AskthePizzaGuy is full of shit- reply 125 to ed)
Reply 126: Gadarene FOS PizzaGuy for his "either peeks or ed is scum" post.
Reply 128: InnerSticker defends Ed by noting he has gone through his posts and notes in His words
With the exception of his beginning set of posts making up fake scumtells and his drunken beastie boys nonsense all but 2 of his posts have been on point and game-related. And the two offtopic posts are responses to me anyway so it's my fault.
Reply 171: Meeko defends his vote on Ed.
Post 180: InnerSticker notes the Vote count:
"By my records it stands at:
Mahaloth (1): Inner Stickler
Special Ed (2): Chronos, Meeko
Chronos (2): Cookies, Peekercpa
Peekercpa (1): Pizzaguy"
Reply 181: PizzaGuy address Ullz Question About either Peeks/Ed being scum. Again, his wordy post is here:
I don't follow this. Where is the connection between the two of them?
I know some players like to think in pairs. But this one I have a problem seeing. Could you explain it to me a bit more?
Scum don't like being overt in defense of their partners, so I have found that they will typically do one of the following:
1) Aggressive defense- attack someone else, with suspect timing. Build a new case so that it overshadows the other case and maybe draws more votes.
2) Not-a-defense defense- defend them by having no opinion and questioning others' opinions about them. It's pretending not to have an opinion by simply not showing strongly either way, but the tell is when the person argues that we should be changing our votes or behavior anyway, and for reasons such as "your votes lack reasoning".
Okay, but it's day one. Sound reasoning is a pipe dream until I at least see everyone vote once or a townie ends up dead via murder. It's taking a principled stand where none is necessary, let's just vote for "I need to vote" reasons, and sort out the bullshit reasoning at a later date.
Peeker is doing a number two, the "not a defense defense" and that's why I'm calling him out on potentially being full of shit.
Will a townie do this? Yes, but it's bad form, and this is why.
askthepizzaguy, believe it or not, but peeker is actually being a lot more clear and communicative in this game than his usual.
I've played with peeker before. The fact that he's being clear and communicative with his wishy-washiness doesn't win him any brownie points with me. It just means it's easier than usual to understand his non-stance.
____Fancy-Ass_Thought_Separator____
I hail from boards where the day ends in 24 or 48 hours, and having played on boards where there's more time than that, I don't know what to do with myself. However, I have taken to pressure voting because I've got plenty of time to do that. More stuff to analyze later.
Peeker's response to my vote+reason seems normal, for him. But I don't expect him to really freak out if he's scum over one whole vote.
I do note that his response is that he hates the various bullshit reasons why folks vote for folks.
My response is tough cookies. You'll get that a lot more on day one. The people who complain the loudest that the reasons for the case are wrong, are the ones who particularly hate that the case is still correct. Nothing burns my ass more than being correctly nailed as scum for non-reasons. At least point out where I was lying or made a stupid mistake.
I'm on the look out for that kind of frustration, as it does indicate guilt. Townies should be familiar with getting voted for bullshit reasons, because when you're a townie, every reason you're getting votes is wrong. Suck it up n stuff.
Strategy-related:
It will be helpful for later analysis and also just for pressuring scum in general if people who aren't voting voted for some people who have no votes. With days this long, you can actually have a lengthy "nomination" process, where people endorse others for death. Gets people on record. Then we can discuss as a group which of the nominees really needs to die.
I've been eager to try that in a game this size with the kind of time we have. I think it's potentially a game-winner but haven't had the chance to implement before now.
Reply 194: Scathach asks Meeko to clarify why he voted for Ed.
Reply 196: Mahaloth weighs in on Ed (He's not suspicious): His words:
Ed: It's just ed goofing off, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he actually was more sensible in the last Doper game. I found him supportive of me(I was Town) and suspected him....correctly. It was Thrill of the Chase Mafia. I don't find him suspicious at all right now.
Reply 199: I weigh in my thoughts on Ed : i find him suspicious at first, but I note that it may be his playstyle, which others have mentioned is usual for him. I FOS Ed but do not vote Ed . My words:
My thoughts right now- I think scathach sorta hits it for me. My initial suspicious were for Special Ed and Chronos, but I think 1. its because they're the ones talking the most. Granted SE has been posting a lot of weirdness so it's hard to read him....
-My initial vote would have gone that way- because it doesnt seem like a normal style, and it does bother me a lil' bit- especially since his posting is nearly double like the next guy. Which as Pollux mentioned could tie into the idea of a role that works with posting limits (Which doesnt seem like a Posting restriction, but more like a power that depends on how other people post). So that makes me leery, but then like 4-5 people have defended Special saying this is actually how he plays, and he can grate on people's nerves with this style.
--So I feel less inclined to vote for Special because it does not seem like every scum would just stick up for special, that doesn't seem smart, and this seems like a smart board. So I feel like maybe my own squicky feelings on Special Ed might just be his style grating on me vs. him actually being scummy (bringing it back to Scat's point- would i be voting for him because he acts anti-town/bothers me vs. because i think he's scummy).
So I think right now, I guess I'd FOS Special Ed? but not vote for him.
Post 207: Pleo posts his RoleClaim and things get off Ed's Playstyle and more into Pleo's actions.