|
Post by guiri on Jul 2, 2014 11:29:13 GMT -5
Just over 24 hours left in the Day, I still don't think abstain is "scum" but would really like him to answer my question. gnarlycharlie, you must not be reading my posts, I struggle to believe you would intentional ignore what I wrote. I find abstain's desire to help players who are hostile to twotw hinky but, at the same time, I do not think it is scummy. For Chronos, anti-town is enough reason to vote him, not for me. You voted Chronos for voting someone for being anti-town but you express suspicion of me for not voting the same player for the same reason? That makes no sense, unless your point is that I am not entitled to express suspicion of a player without voting them, even one who I do not think is scum? Can express distrust of Mahaloth and his dealings without voting? I guess there must be lots of conversations going on through private messaging, which would go some way towards explaining the post volume here... I'm going Vote Meeko for his comment about changing alignments.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 2, 2014 11:37:39 GMT -5
I'm going Vote Meeko for his comment about changing alignments. Could you be more specific for those of us lacking useful brain cells?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jul 2, 2014 12:11:37 GMT -5
I'm going Vote Meeko for his comment about changing alignments. Could you be more specific for those of us lacking useful brain cells? This post, last two bits. Not many votes. Disappointing. For the record, a vote for me is a vote knowingly against town. There is no possibility I do any of this as a mafia member, and those that are voting me should definitely be looked at. It isn't scum hunting and it isn't pro town to lynch me. Discuss all you like, but the sheer fact that I am extraordinarily unlikely to be mafia means there will be better targets today. I read this, and had a knee jerk reaction much the same as Chronos'. I've voted other people for less in the past. (Pleonast could take a page or two here, your role claiming here is streamlined and efficient with 23% more beef flavorings.) "A vote knowingly against town" in this context is more than enough for me. Vote: AbstainWorse, you say you can change alignments. So how can we hold you to any alignment, if you claim the ability to change them?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 2, 2014 12:23:00 GMT -5
Mahaloth, you are happy to help any player, hostile or non hostile to the white, and will keep every purchase a secret? Yes, though I will reveal my new stock if I get some from a killed person. I have no idea, but that may give some very minor insight into which of the killed people's stuff I got. Of course if only one person dies, it would be obvious where my new stock came from. I am keeping all purchases and even attempted "bids" secret, even if the bid is outbid by another characters.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 2, 2014 12:39:21 GMT -5
Of course if only one person dies, it would be obvious where my new stock came from. No it wouldn't be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 2, 2014 12:40:43 GMT -5
Fuck this app. My statement was not in quote tags. Grumble.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 2, 2014 12:47:13 GMT -5
I guess. I was simply stating if I get new stock and only one player dies, it is likely I got it from tracking that death.
No matter what side you are on, it makes sense to tell me who you are killing so if you are the first to do so, you get half the miracles/sorceeries they had. Even if they had zero, you get the same as if you hadn't told me(and I get zero as well, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 14:41:24 GMT -5
unvote: swammerdami since he has stopped espousing the "we must vote for one of the lynch leaders" theory.
I don't like the case against abstain. He may very well turn out to be Hostile, but I don't see anything in his play so far that necessarily suggests that. I'm slightly more wary of Chronos, but I'm not about to vote the claimed Mason on Day 1. I'm tempted to toss a vote on Chameleon for being a hypocrite for her vote on me (it wasn't kind of the same thing; it was exactly the same thing)...but though hers was a bad vote, it was not necessarily a Scummy one.
I'm going to take another look at the folks voting for abstain and Chronos, especially those who placed their votes later, to see if it looks like anyone might be trying to deliberately feed a Town-on-Town showdown...
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 15:03:55 GMT -5
There are two arguments that I see all the time. The first is this one, which is difference of opinion on whether in a close lynch vote someone should pick one of those candidates or just vote for whoever you feel is most likely scum even if it will have no effect on the lynch. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and no matter which way people decide, scum can use it to avoid accountability. I think placing votes on people because of a difference in opinion on strategy is an easy vote for scum to make. I agree that there are different approaches to the game here, and I agree that one should not vote for someone simply for taking the opposite viewpoint. But that's not what I was doing when I voted for swammerdami. For the record, I think that both sides of the argument here can be valid, depending on the state of the game. There are times when it's obvious that one of two candidates is going to be lynched; in those situations I think it's important for every player to take a stand and make their vote count by choosing one or the other of the players who are 'on the block'. But the middle stages of Day 1 are not one of those times. The only reason that abstain and Chronos were 'lynch candidates' at that point was due to 'gut feelings' by uninformed players (or votes by Hostile players who know they are not 'one of them'). Now, that's as good a reason as any to vote for someone at that stage of the game, but it's nowhere near enough of a reason to exclude the other 21 players from consideration. swammerdami created a false dilemma...and then didn't even act upon it...which in my opinion was activity worthy of a Day 1 vote. Not that this has come into play in this game (yet)...but I have no problem at all with self-preservation votes. The only thing a Town player knows for certain is that they are Town, and that their death would therefore be a mislynch. From that player's perspective, lynching 'someone else' is always a better tactic, because the chance of them being Scum is >0%.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 15:25:10 GMT -5
Welcome to the Game; you are Black Iron Tarkas... You have come to Lordran in the company of <redacted>; so long as at least two of you live, none of you may abandon The Way of the White for another Covenant. STARTING COVENANT: The Way of the WhiteSTARTING SOULS: 1 STARTING SOAPSTONES: 1 (w) CAN USE: Weapons, Armor I have removed the portions that relate to my starting items (yes, I have starting items which are moderately useful), as well as the information pertaining to my partner(s). My role PM told me the screen names and role names of my partners; I'm leaving off their role names because I don't know how much information those contain. I also know some about the masonry from a soapstone-message I received from a partner, but I won't share any of that at this time. And yes, I know that it's possible for a Scum to false-claim Mason, in the hope or knowledge that there are no real masons (though that would be incredibly ballsy, on Day 1 presumably before the Scum would have a chance to learn for sure). My claim is not proof of anything, and I do not expect it to be taken as such. I just hope that it'll be enough to move enough votes off of me. <some formatting fixes>Chronos, does your Masonry not have their own private board for out-of-game communication?
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 2, 2014 15:40:00 GMT -5
Our masonry does not have a private board. I guess Storyteller figured that soapstones were good enough for that... though I do feel a bit inadequate having only one. Then again, though, I've seen masonries which had no private communication at all, and the main benefit of a masonry is just the knowledge that the other(s) are Town.
On the matter of voting for one of the leaders vs. who you think is more suspicious, I think that it makes a difference, but only in retrospect once some or all of the alignments of votees are known. If there are two competing Town bandwagons and someone puts a one-off on a Scum, that looks very different from if there are a Townie and a Scum competing, and someone places a one-off on a Townie.
Ultimately, though, I think that the reasons people give for their votes are more important than who votes for whom when. Just the raw voting record does contain useful data, but a skilled Scum team can mangle that data beyond hope of recovery. I know: I've done what I believe to be the most thorough analysis of vote records possible, and I've seen it fail horribly.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 2, 2014 16:28:51 GMT -5
I still think Colby's vote was illogical but that doesn't imply Scummitude. (In fact, assuming Scum can communicate during the Day, good logic might result from consultation and thus be a Scum tell! ) Unvote: Colby11Let me admit -- and this is probably an admission of anti-Town voting, so do please attack me for it -- that I picked Colby to vote over Plankton because voting the latter would seem OMGUS. Now that he's unVoted me, that onus is removed. Vote: Suburban PlanktonEven his first post gives a slight Scummy ping: Afraid you and your Scum buddies won't have enough time to get your actions in, dizzy? On the question "Should I vote for one of two Lynch leaders despite that someone else is Scummier?", I agree with Mental Guy that neither stance is necessarily Scummy. But what intrigues me is that Mr. Plankton and I appear to have similar views on the question! I'll eventually have to decide between the two Lynch candidates, but I don't have a real Scum read on either. I agree that there are different approaches to the game here, and I agree that one should not vote for someone simply for taking the opposite viewpoint. But that's not what I was doing when I voted for swammerdami. For the record, I think that both sides of the argument here can be valid, depending on the state of the game. There are times when it's obvious that one of two candidates is going to be lynched... But the middle stages of Day 1 are not one of those times. ... nowhere near enough of a reason to exclude the other 21 players from consideration. swammerdami created a false dilemma...and then didn't even act upon it...which in my opinion was activity worthy of a Day 1 vote.... For heaven's sake I voted for one of the other 21 players; how does that "exclude that player from consideration"? And I wrote "eventually" while Plankton goes with the more verbose "[end of Day 1 rather than] middle stages of Day 1," but our meanings are very similar. I'm not certain Plankton is Scum. But it seems very clear he stretched to find a reason to vote me and is now stretching back the other way in response to votes against him.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 17:05:40 GMT -5
On the question "Should I vote for one of two Lynch leaders despite that someone else is Scummier?", I agree with Mental Guy that neither stance is necessarily Scummy. But what intrigues me is that Mr. Plankton and I appear to have similar views on the question! What's so intriguing about it? Apparently all three of us agree that there is nothing inherently scummy about either stance. But I didn't vote for you based upon your position on this issue; I voted for you based on the fact that you created an issue where there wasn't one in the first place. In this situation (mid-Day on Day 1) there was no need to decide between the 'lynch leaders', yet your post suggested that such a choice was required ("I'll eventually have to decide"). That's why I voted for you. I do have to apologize here for one thing. I did note that you didn't vote for anyone in the post in question ( Post 98)...but I failed to note that you had already voted for paulwhoisaghost back in Post 53. I stand by my statement that you created a false dilemma, but I was mistaken in saying that you failed to act upon it, since you had acted previously. I disagree that I "stretched" to find a reason to vote you. First, my reasoning was very clear. Second, any vote on Day 1 is going to be light on evidence; as such, my reasoning and argument was at least as good as any other.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 2, 2014 17:07:24 GMT -5
Vote count, please?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 17:19:53 GMT -5
My (unofficial) count:
abstain (5): dizzymrslizzy (23), Chronos (33), peekercpa (52), Meeko (72), Colby11 (96) Chronos (3): gnarlycharlie (50), ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (59-147), Mentalguy (74-149), Inner Stickler (80), bufftabby (134) Suburban Plankton (3): Chameleon (118), MentalGuy (149), swammerdami (161) sinjin (1): abstain (5) Meeko (1): guiri (150) paulwhoisaghost (0): swammerdami (53-142) swammerdami (0): Suburban Plankton (108-157) Colby11 (0): swammerdami (142-161)
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 2, 2014 17:31:54 GMT -5
It occurs to me upon a re-read that abstain really hasn't actually contributed much to the proceedings Today. He led off with a "random but not that random" vote on sinjin, then he makes his claim, discusses that a bit, then discusses it some more, but he never really says anything else. Earlier I said that I hadn't noted anything necessarily Scummy about his play...now it occurs to me that he hasn't done anything terribly Townie either.
Notably, he hasn't made any attempt to offer up a better lynch candidate than himself, which bothers me. Of course, his last post in the thread was on Sunday afternoon, so who knows what to make of that...
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jul 2, 2014 18:56:26 GMT -5
My totals agree with Suburban's.
Vote count
Abstain(5): dizzy[23], Chronos[33], peeker[52], Meeko[72], Colby[96] Chronos(3): Gnarlycharlie[50], cookies[59-147], MentalGuy[74-149], Inner Stickler[80], bufftabby[134] Suburban Plankton(3): Chameleon[119], MentalGuy[149], swammerdami[161] Sinjin(1): Abstain[5] Meeko(1): Guiri[150] Paulwhoisaghost(0): swammerdami[53-142] swammerdami(0): Suburban[108-157] Colby(0): swammerdami[142-161]
Day will end at 12:30PM Eastern time on Thursday, July 3. I make that to be about 15 1/2 hours from now.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 2, 2014 19:48:05 GMT -5
It occurs to me upon a re-read that abstain really hasn't actually contributed much to the proceedings Today. He led off with a "random but not that random" vote on sinjin, then he makes his claim, discusses that a bit, then discusses it some more, but he never really says anything else. Earlier I said that I hadn't noted anything necessarily Scummy about his play...now it occurs to me that he hasn't done anything terribly Townie either. Notably, he hasn't made any attempt to offer up a better lynch candidate than himself, which bothers me. Of course, his last post in the thread was on Sunday afternoon, so who knows what to make of that... What I make of it is that Abstain is in the same boat as a lot of other people wrt not offering up a much of a case, including myself. Early claims tend to draw votes regardless but are not always from scum/other or anti-town. I don't think he bought himself more accountability than anyone else with his claim. Agreed that his vote on sinjin does stink though.
|
|
|
Post by abstain on Jul 2, 2014 20:15:37 GMT -5
Internet is pretty bad here.
I don't necessarily believe Chronos - his strategy doesn't make too much sense as a mason, and claiming mason doesn't mean too much, I've seen scum claim it d1 and I've done it d1 myself. However I will not put my vote there. Tarkus being a mason is interesting....
I think Swammer is town.
Suburban is a fine vote to me.
Unvote: sinjin Vote: colby
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 2, 2014 21:39:35 GMT -5
Beg pardon?
And what about my strategy doesn't make sense as a mason? Looking for anti-Town behavior isn't my Mason strategy; it's my strategy no matter what my role. I mean, I won't vote for my fellow mason(s) even if they do anti-Town things, but I figured that part was too obvious to need mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 2, 2014 21:42:14 GMT -5
Oh, and what's interesting about Tarkus being a mason? I hadn't even realized that our names came from the game, and now that I know and checked the Wikia page about him, I'm still pretty much in the dark. I guess he's a potential companion for the player?
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 2, 2014 22:37:22 GMT -5
Internet is pretty bad here. I don't necessarily believe Chronos - his strategy doesn't make too much sense as a mason, and claiming mason doesn't mean too much, I've seen scum claim it d1 and I've done it d1 myself. However I will not put my vote there. Tarkus being a mason is interesting.... I think Swammer is town. Suburban is a fine vote to me. Unvote: sinjin Vote: colbyColor me confused as of right now
|
|
abstain this is a pain!
Guest
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by abstain this is a pain! on Jul 2, 2014 23:10:23 GMT -5
Beg pardon? And what about my strategy doesn't make sense as a mason? Looking for anti-Town behavior isn't my Mason strategy; it's my strategy no matter what my role. I mean, I won't vote for my fellow mason(s) even if they do anti-Town things, but I figured that part was too obvious to need mentioning . I " By god this text editor is hard to use. Anyway, probably a difference of playstyle when it comes to the mason. If Tarkus is a mason, he either is with some berenike (sp?) knights or with other phantoms, or helpful characters such as Solaire of Astora and a few others. It would be helpful to have the names of the other masons, or at least one other.
|
|
|
Post by abstain on Jul 2, 2014 23:11:48 GMT -5
Yes that was me - forgot to log in.
I'm voting colby because I think he's scum - his vote and reasoning don't sound particularly townie, and he isn't doing much to dissuade me otherwise.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 3, 2014 0:32:23 GMT -5
Yes that was me - forgot to log in. I'm voting colby because I think he's scum - his vote and reasoning don't sound particularly townie, and he isn't doing much to dissuade me otherwise. Yes... Me not believing your claim makes me scummy. I apologize for thinking for myself, unlike others. I will, however, review your claim again just out of courtesy.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Jul 3, 2014 0:41:53 GMT -5
Hey all, I'm sorry I haven't been able to play the last few days, I have a houseful of guests (unexpected guests BTW) Anyway, I have just finished reading the thread and I don't feel either of the top lynch choices are scum. As I don't think I will be back to place a vote before end of day. I'm going with my gut here and something I noticed while reading the thread. Texcat has posted only vote counts - no votes, no cases, no opinions, no commits, nothing to draw attention this seems odd to me. Like she is hiding in plain sight. I know it is not much of a case but then again if you post only fluff no one can make a case against you.
Vote: texcat
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 3, 2014 0:43:51 GMT -5
The club is actually a great early game weapon. You just start with a not particularly good shield and no armour. But you can choose to be anything. I have no intention of helping anti town wincons, simply that I can allow them to leave their covenants. How does this not read as a Town Converter? If you leave one covenant, you obviously have to join another one I'm not a recruiter, I can't make anyone do anything. But I can allow people to leave their covenant however they make the choice to leave. Still reads as a converter to me. This just says that the person has the choice to accept or reject your offer, nothing more. The fact that you are arguing about this, when you yourself have pretty much said that you can convert them, still makes you a town recruiter. Maybe better than being called a town converter. Not sure how else to see it, unless you convert to a third party or scum team.... Still waiting to find out where my logic is wrong, based on what I have from your posts
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 3, 2014 0:44:33 GMT -5
Hey all, I'm sorry I haven't been able to play the last few days, I have a houseful of guests (unexpected guests BTW) Anyway, I have just finished reading the thread and I don't feel either of the top lynch choices are scum. As I don't think I will be back to place a vote before end of day. I'm going with my gut here and something I noticed while reading the thread. Texcat has posted only vote counts - no votes, no cases, no opinions, no commits, nothing to draw attention this seems odd to me. Like she is hiding in plain sight. I know it is not much of a case but then again if you post only fluff no one can make a case against you. Vote: texcat She's a moderator (aka not playing)
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jul 3, 2014 1:09:11 GMT -5
Our masonry does not have a private board. I guess Storyteller figured that soapstones were good enough for that... though I do feel a bit inadequate having only one. Then again, though, I've seen masonries which had no private communication at all, and the main benefit of a masonry is just the knowledge that the other(s) are Town. I have to say I'm finding this a bit...odd. Perhaps once you find one another you will be able to freely communicate? You'd think that would be indicated in your role PM though. A Masonry that can't communicate except for a single message (presuming the others also only have one soapstone)? I guess anything is possible, but this is worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 3, 2014 3:37:59 GMT -5
Internet is pretty bad here. I don't necessarily believe Chronos Where are you? My provider will be down for the weekend (with no convenient alternative), supposedly to upgrade/repair his system ... thus beginning next week my Internet may get better. I also remain somewhat suspicious of Chronos. What was the basis for his "I have reason to believe we're the only Masons"? I think Swamm eri is town. I'm glad somebody does. Would you like to share details via PM? Do you need a soapstone? Though frankly I'm less eager to spend two soapstones on someone currently poised to go Hollow. Did you see my suggestion for possibly deflecting votes? (It required spending a soapstone, if you have no explanation for your peculiarish claim that you're willing to publish.)
|
|