|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:16:57 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 13:16:57 GMT -5
Blaster Master:
Sure thing. I don't mean to be cryptic about it---or, at least, I don't mean to be unnecessarily cryptic about it, as I don't want to say anything that might divulge specific knowledge regarding Mafia III. But here are my observations, for what they're worth. I want to state expressly that I'm throwing in at least one "red herring" observation here, to try and deflect the possibility of scum using this as a "how to act townie." That is, one or two of the things I list below are not standard townie behavior, in my estimation...and anyone adopting or evincing them from this point forward will be looked at askance by me. I hope that's reasonable; I don't intend the following list to be a prescriptive primer that changes anyone's behavior in any way whatsoever.
And to answer your question, these are things that I've found tend to reflect towniness. They're generally indicative of a spontaneity and/or genuineness of townie sentiment that I think is very hard to emulate, even by smart scum. That someone bears one or more of these traits doesn't necessarily mean they're town, but it's a significant indicator to me. I think it's a lot harder to find a tone that's more specific to scum, though...or rather, in the games I've watched and run, scum tend to behave like various types of townies, but not like this type of townie, if that makes any sense.
To the extent that any of this stuff sounds kinda stupid, I fully admit that my observations might be circular and/or self-fulfilling. That is, I know who's town in Mafia III, so my belief that there's a townie "tone" might just be me subconsciously thinking, "These people are town, and they behave this way. Q.E.D." That being said:
1) Townies tend to use more smilies.
2) Townies tend to sound less sure of themselves.
2a) Townies tend to be more likely to make multiple posts in quick succession, either correcting themselves or expanding upon what they've said. (Obviously I self-identify with this, but I've definitely noticed it as a more general principle.) In addition, townies tend to be more likely to make a large number of small posts rather than a small number of large posts, but that goes to posting frequency rather than tone and is thus a bit afield of this question.
2b) Townies tend to phrase things more casually, with less of an apparent sense of how each word of theirs might be taken. (There are obviously exceptions to this, c.f. nesta in Mafia II and Lemur866 in Mafia III.)
3) Townies tend to hit the emotional extremes. They tend take the game less overtly seriously, making lighthearted comments and generally having more fun with everything. (The cheerful self-deprecation in KatiRoo's last post is what's giving me significant pause about her.) Reading Mafia III, the jokes made by the scum there often seem to be more consciously forced. Maybe I'm imagining that.
3a) Conversely, as someone (fluiddruid? storyteller? I'm too lazy to check) said a bit earlier, I think townies tend to be a bit more likely to react heatedly and defensively at posts accusing them (rather than the preemptive defensiveness I thought I'd noticed in Cookies). Meltdown posts are far more likely to come from townies, it seems to me. Moreover, townies are more likely to directly and immediately fling suspicion right back from whence it came, although I think everyone's getting better at the game and realizing that that's not the most fruitful tack to take.
4) Townies tend to ask more rules questions. They also tend to ask for vote counts more frequently. (Of course, these are two things that can easily exploited by the scum, but it just seems to me that they don't tend to think to ask this stuff as much as straight-up townies do.)
This post is long enough. Part Two coming up.
I hope I've caveated this enough. It's not intended to be a guide to identifying townies, yadda yadda, more like my fumbling articulation of the sort of tone that makes me think that someone is more likely to be on the side of the angels.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:18:21 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 13:18:21 GMT -5
Gad said: "Well, we've got a small amount of time. Do either of you have someone else to propose?" Well, not to beat an apparently impervious horse (and I don't think I have enough to go on for anyone to convince anyone (even myself) in the time we have left), but Blaster Master, despite his explanation as to his lurking (one can have a valid excuse and still be scum, no?), still never has responded to my questions of post #191 back on page 7 and the following discussion. I was subsequently just accused of "putting blame all over the place" and a strange boomerang effect, but never a response. (Plus his completely unnecessary post in the 'absences' thread (if it will be night why bother excusing yourself in advance?) seems calculated.) I don't know if any of this is really scummy, but I think it could use a look. If 'over-defensive' is crew-ey, what is a complete failure to bother addressing suspicion and mellowly brush it off on the questioner? And his most recent post sounds like the pirate equivalent of gormless crew fishing. In case I DO go today I wanted to bring attention to this before I have no voice. I've been trying not to see suspicion of me as suspicious, but the way in which this has unfolded to no attention has my hackles up. This thought may earn no vote at all except mine, but just so it's on the record, unvote idle thoughts, vote blaster master I'm not really sure what kind of response you want out of me. My reason for not responding was because I figured the whole "random vote" discussion was over, and I thought my thought process on it was clear. Further, as I understood the conclusion of that discussion, that we essentially came to the conclusion that it was a difference of opinion regarding strategy and that disagreement does not a pirate make.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:20:42 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 13:20:42 GMT -5
capybara:That's a good word for my #2b. Townies seem much less calculated. I don't really agree with that label as applied to Blaster Master, though---or rather, I think he is calculated, but I think he's been calculated in every game we've played so far. (It's what made me really suspect him in Mafia II, that and the voting bloc.) He's just a calculating son of a gun.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:24:54 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 13:24:54 GMT -5
I know you said you wouldn't have time to respond, but on the off chance that you do - The problem is that the action I find suspicious is not that you FoSed Auntbeast. It is that you did so based on the same reasoning that MadtheSwine had used not a page before, then turned around and accused Mad of making insubstantial posts in basically your next substantive post. So the question(s) is (are): were Mad's posts regarding Auntbeast substantive or not? If so, why did you vote for him on the basis of his nonsubstantive participation? If not, then why did you base your own FoS entirely on his reasoning? And if his pursuit of Auntbeast was not substantial, then what can we say about your own posting, which echoed his reasoning without adding anything new? As I said earlier, and has been noted in many earlier posts, On Day One, we're legitimately suspicious of everyone. I did a quick review of Mad's posts on this board (I didn't go review the posts on SS Google, which maybe I should have done). This was what I came up with - For Mad the Swine – 26 posts (at that point) lots of posts – mostly fluff – maybe not lurking (post #212), but posting without content. #6 - fluff #14 – fluff #97 – Vote Auntbeast – no reasoning #100 – fluff #101 – fluff #109 – post of my reply to NAF1138’s question re suspicions of lurkers. No comment on it, though #110 – fluff #166 – reply to FcoD’s suspicion’s of MtS. Verifes that vote for Aunty was just a “poke” to get things moving. Legitimate reasoning. #172 – fluff #174 – fluff #176 – request for Aunty to elaborate on her FOS of him #184 – REALLY fluff #212 – identifies self-humiliation & lurking as scum tells (on Aunty). #218 – FOS on somebody, I’m not exactly sure who #226 – reply to Cookies post regarding #212. Just says she pings his radar (at this point legitimate). #270 – reporting on Autolycus’ extra-shipboard activities. #274 – report on Blaster’s presence on board. #282 – have to vote for somebody - vote for Autolycus cause he’s a lurker (as good as anything else) #310 – justifying vote for Autolycus cause he’s a lurker (legitimate) #335 – unvote Autolycus #340 – fluff #341 – question to fluiddruid #351 – more reporting on Blaster’s presence #356 – ask for vote count #365 – revote Autolycus, based on non-performance Mad had some posts with observations, but very few with reasoning or analysis of the other players posts (unlike, say, capybara's posts). I think a player's reasoning for his/her actions is the best way to get a feeling for a person's pirateness. I couldn't get this from MtS. Autolycus is still suspect, just because he has nothing we can analyze. That being said, I still feel that Mad is posting a lot without actually saying anything - which is exactly what I would be doing if I were a pirate.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:31:28 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 13:31:28 GMT -5
3) Townies tend to hit the emotional extremes. They tend take the game less overtly seriously, making lighthearted comments and generally having more fun with everything. (The cheerful self-deprecation in KatiRoo's last post is what's giving me significant pause about her.) Huh??
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:32:30 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 13:32:30 GMT -5
capybara:That's a good word for my #2b. Townies seem much less calculated. I don't really agree with that label as applied to Blaster Master, though---or rather, I think he is calculated, but I think he's been calculated in every game we've played so far. (It's what made me really suspect him in Mafia II, that and the voting bloc.) FTR, as I've already stated, I consider it poor form to use a RL excuse in this game when it isn't true simply to avoid suspicion. My purpose for posting there was essentially that I'd drawn suspcion for not posting for not even two days. The last thing I want is to come back on Monday night or Tuesday and see half a dozen votes against me based on the same argument. Thanks.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:33:24 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 13:33:24 GMT -5
Three I see a lot of defense for KatiRoo comming down to the fact that she is a newbie. She isn't. She said so herself. She is a mafiascum.net player, meaning she is better than we are giving her credit for. And because of that I don't think her being a newbie is a valid defense, and the case against her is fairly strong (for a first day lynch) so: vote KatiRooTo be fair to me, I never claimed to be a newby - that is a characterization that other players have made.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:37:34 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 13:37:34 GMT -5
Me:
KatiRoo:
In a good way. A couple of hours ago you said:
Your cheerfulness and lightheartedness in that post rings strongly crew to me. If you're scum, that's a pretty expert imitation of the townie tone.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:37:58 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 13:37:58 GMT -5
Honestly, the massive creaking sound as half the ship ran over to vote for the person I voted for is making me feel a bit unsettled. Might not signify anything at all, but I'm not sure it's a good sign. I'ts OK, you can name me. (I'm trying to answer as many posts as I can before I go away, apparently forever.)
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:38:57 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 13:38:57 GMT -5
I know you said you wouldn't have time to respond, but on the off chance that you do - The problem is that the action I find suspicious is not that you FoSed Auntbeast. It is that you did so based on the same reasoning that MadtheSwine had used not a page before, then turned around and accused Mad of making insubstantial posts in basically your next substantive post. So the question(s) is (are): were Mad's posts regarding Auntbeast substantive or not? If so, why did you vote for him on the basis of his nonsubstantive participation? If not, then why did you base your own FoS entirely on his reasoning? And if his pursuit of Auntbeast was not substantial, then what can we say about your own posting, which echoed his reasoning without adding anything new? As I said earlier, and has been noted in many earlier posts, On Day One, we're legitimately suspicious of everyone. I did a quick review of Mad's posts on this board (I didn't go review the posts on SS Google, which maybe I should have done). This was what I came up with - For Mad the Swine – 26 posts (at that point) lots of posts – mostly fluff – maybe not lurking (post #212), but posting without content. #6 - fluff #14 – fluff #97 – Vote Auntbeast – no reasoning #100 – fluff #101 – fluff #109 – post of my reply to NAF1138’s question re suspicions of lurkers. No comment on it, though #110 – fluff #166 – reply to FcoD’s suspicion’s of MtS. Verifes that vote for Aunty was just a “poke” to get things moving. Legitimate reasoning. #172 – fluff #174 – fluff #176 – request for Aunty to elaborate on her FOS of him #184 – REALLY fluff #212 – identifies self-humiliation & lurking as scum tells (on Aunty). #218 – FOS on somebody, I’m not exactly sure who #226 – reply to Cookies post regarding #212. Just says she pings his radar (at this point legitimate). #270 – reporting on Autolycus’ extra-shipboard activities. #274 – report on Blaster’s presence on board. #282 – have to vote for somebody - vote for Autolycus cause he’s a lurker (as good as anything else) #310 – justifying vote for Autolycus cause he’s a lurker (legitimate) #335 – unvote Autolycus #340 – fluff #341 – question to fluiddruid #351 – more reporting on Blaster’s presence #356 – ask for vote count #365 – revote Autolycus, based on non-performance Mad had some posts with observations, but very few with reasoning or analysis of the other players posts (unlike, say, capybara's posts). I think a player's reasoning for his/her actions is the best way to get a feeling for a person's pirateness. I couldn't get this from MtS. Autolycus is still suspect, just because he has nothing we can analyze. That being said, I still feel that Mad is posting a lot without actually saying anything - which is exactly what I would be doing if I were a pirate. You're still not answering my questions, or at least, you're answering them in a way that seems designed to avoid the point. My point here is that MadtheSwine's participation here has actually rather resembled yours; he drew suspicion toward Auntbeast because she kept making claims of being naive, and you did the same (in considerably fewer words). Since then, your only significant contributions have been these two defense posts, and your posts accusing Mad of being nonsubstantive in his posting. My point is that from where I sit, if his contributions are insubstantial, than so are yours. And if we are to suspect him for this reason, why shouldn't we suspect you?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:39:56 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 13:39:56 GMT -5
Blaster Master:
Yeah, that's fine; I agree with you that it's poor form, and I don't think (and never thought) that's what you were doing. I merely took capy's word there as le mot juste to describe what townies generally are not, and tried to make it clear that some people, like you, can't help but sound calculating in your word choice and tone no matter what role you have.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:49:42 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 13:49:42 GMT -5
Part Two
5) In line with #1 and #2b above, townies tend more often to use exclamation points and other indicia of spontaneous comments or expression.
6) Unless they've specifically been called out by FOS or vote, townies tend to be more apparently oblivious to the shifting tide of sentiment against them...or at least feel less of a need to defend immediately against any perceived slight. (You know what? Disregard this point. I put it in---and am keeping it in---because I think it does tend to be true, but this is also the observation most likely to have been influenced by my remembering specific townies in specific circumstances; I think it's hard to identify this from townie to townie, not least because of the staggeringly different schedules people have for online availability.)
7) Townies tend to be more likely to personalize their posts, as far as actually referring to real-life (or SDMB) characteristics, actions, or events relating to the players they're discussing. This basically goes back to taking the game a bit less seriously, on the whole, and not viewing it in a contextual vacuum.
8) Townies tend to comment more on their own actions and posts---and their own persona, both in-game and out---as they're making them. I have a sterling example of this from Mafia III, but unfortunately I can't use it.
I've just realized that several of these observations boil down to the overarching maxim: Townies are more likely to post without thinking the post through.
I hope some of this helps (or at least is responsive to your question). It's a bit scattered.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:57:41 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 13:57:41 GMT -5
You're still not answering my questions, or at least, you're answering them in a way that seems designed to avoid the point. My point here is that MadtheSwine's participation here has actually rather resembled yours; he drew suspicion toward Auntbeast because she kept making claims of being naive, and you did the same (in considerably fewer words). Since then, your only significant contributions have been these two defense posts, and your posts accusing Mad of being nonsubstantive in his posting. My point is that from where I sit, if his contributions are insubstantial, than so are yours. And if we are to suspect him for this reason, why shouldn't we suspect you? I wnet back and reviewed my posts (which I guess I should have done earlier. I summarized everyone else's before voting.) Looking at my posts, I come up with For KatiRoo – 23 posts #30 – fluff #92 – suspicious of players with few posts. No reasoning #103 – anyone who claims less info is good is probaly not good. #107 – reply to NAF – lurking is a factor, not necessarily the only factor #111 – reply to NAF - why I can be suspicious of lurkers and aggressive players both #114 – fluff #116 – REALLY fluff #158 – reply to Pleonast – why I think aggressive players are suspicious #159 – fluff #199 – REALLY fluff #243 – Scumdar on Auntbeast based on the “I’m so stupid” claim #268 – fluff #378 – vote for MadTheSwine #395 – Still voting for MTS #463 – response to storyteller’s observations #464 – fluff I suppose you can read posts #103, #103 and #243 and the responses to questions on them as the only substantive posts. Why did I vote MTS? I still think the tenor of his posts is very non-committal, with very little reasoning. If I were a pirate, this is what I would do.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:59:31 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 25, 2007 13:59:31 GMT -5
Unofficial Vote CountPoster | Votes | Voters | Kyrie Eleison | 1 | Idle Thoughts | capybara | 5 | Blaster Master, fluiddruid, FlyingCowOfDoom, mhaye, Mad The Swine | ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies | 1 | Pleonast | Idle Thoughts | 1 | cowgirl | storyteller0910 | 1 | diggitcamara | Mad The Swine | 2 | KatiRoo, auntbeast | KatiRoo | 9 | storyteller0910, panamajack, ArizonaTeach, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, zuma, Gadarene, CaerieD, hockeymonkey, NAF1138 | hockymonkey | 1 | Lakai | Lakai | 1 | Kyrie Eleison | Blaster Master | 1 | capybara |
The order of the names in the "Voters" column is the order in which the outstanding votes were cast. The order of rows, from top to bottom, is according to the amount of time that poster has held votes continuously. This information is from my notes, and while I believe it to be accurate, I'm offering no guarantees.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:04:02 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 14:04:02 GMT -5
I've just realized that several of these observations boil down to the overarching maxim: Townies are more likely to post without thinking the post through.I hope some of this helps (or at least is responsive to your question). It's a bit scattered. Thank you much. Some of those I very much see. For the other ones, I may have to go back and take a look-see, but I think I get what you're going after.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:04:23 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 25, 2007 14:04:23 GMT -5
Good Og. Y'all sure do make a "quick check" from the airport a royal pain in the arrrrrrrrrrrrrse. Game III got my attention at LAX, and now my better half is in line to get our rental car here in Vegas, so I don't have enough time to say much, and there's too much to read to say anything in any informed way.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:04:59 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 25, 2007 14:04:59 GMT -5
Since Katieroo keeps calling me Aunty, I think she's a peach! If we are indeed supposed to consider this forum a vacuum, then posts such as storytellers adept, well storytelling in the prior game should not even be mentioned. However, some folks do know how other players have acted before and it is coloring their decisions, therefore, not mentioning it seems wrong also. The fact is, if you know someone is a strong player because of a prior game, or a vigorous debater because of past pit threads or a one-offer from flame threads or humorous from MPSIMS threads it does color you. As well it should, since it is difficult for most people to go too far outside themselves in whatever activity they share, especially since the SDMB is the sort of board for you to understand the person more than idle chat discussions would on IRC. If I was to compare this to reality shows such as Survivor, one of the first things they do is want to eliminate who they feel are stronger players, but inevitably let them languish around because they are "needed." Having someone such as Storyteller who is perceived to be such a strong player, but tempered with the fact their analysis would be helpful, rather smacks of the same sort of logic path. The question I ask myself, who do I think the strongest players are and why. Are they able to sway public opinion with a single well thought out post? Do people trust their judgment enough to follow them? Are they able to deflect blame easily? What is the most likely role for a strong player? How would them being town vs. pirate affect game play. Is it more advantageous to have a strong pirate or a strong townie? How would each of those roles affect how that strength is portrayed? unvote MadTheSwinevote Storyteller
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:06:08 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 14:06:08 GMT -5
I'd wish you best of luck and much happiness, Cookies, but that might be seen as pandering given my recent posts. ;D
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:09:01 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 14:09:01 GMT -5
Unofficial Vote CountPoster | Votes | Voters | Kyrie Eleison | 1 | Idle Thoughts | capybara | 5 | Blaster Master, fluiddruid, FlyingCowOfDoom, mhaye, Mad The Swine | ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies | 1 | Pleonast | Idle Thoughts | 1 | cowgirl | storyteller0910 | 1 | diggitcamara | Mad The Swine | 2 | KatiRoo, auntbeast | KatiRoo | 9 | storyteller0910, panamajack, ArizonaTeach, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, zuma, Gadarene, CaerieD, hockeymonkey, NAF1138 | hockymonkey | 1 | Lakai | Lakai | 1 | Kyrie Eleison | Blaster Master | 1 | capybara |
The order of the names in the "Voters" column is the order in which the outstanding votes were cast. The order of rows, from top to bottom, is according to the amount of time that poster has held votes continuously. This information is from my notes, and while I believe it to be accurate, I'm offering no guarantees. Nine!? I didn't know it was that many. Umm... KatiRoo, you have one hour. At least I figure you would have role-claimed if you had a special one, so I hope that at worst you're vanilla and crewy.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:10:12 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 14:10:12 GMT -5
Since Katieroo keeps calling me Aunty, I think she's a peach! If we are indeed supposed to consider this forum a vacuum, then posts such as storytellers adept, well storytelling in the prior game should not even be mentioned. However, some folks do know how other players have acted before and it is coloring their decisions, therefore, not mentioning it seems wrong also. The fact is, if you know someone is a strong player because of a prior game, or a vigorous debater because of past pit threads or a one-offer from flame threads or humorous from MPSIMS threads it does color you. As well it should, since it is difficult for most people to go too far outside themselves in whatever activity they share, especially since the SDMB is the sort of board for you to understand the person more than idle chat discussions would on IRC. If I was to compare this to reality shows such as Survivor, one of the first things they do is want to eliminate who they feel are stronger players, but inevitably let them languish around because they are "needed." Having someone such as Storyteller who is perceived to be such a strong player, but tempered with the fact their analysis would be helpful, rather smacks of the same sort of logic path. The question I ask myself, who do I think the strongest players are and why. Are they able to sway public opinion with a single well thought out post? Do people trust their judgment enough to follow them? Are they able to deflect blame easily? What is the most likely role for a strong player? How would them being town vs. pirate affect game play. Is it more advantageous to have a strong pirate or a strong townie? How would each of those roles affect how that strength is portrayed? unvote MadTheSwinevote StorytellerI realize this may come across as defensive because your post ends with a vote for me, but, huh? Do you actually have any reason to suspect that I might be a pirate, or are you basically saying that you think of me as a strong player and I should therefore be eliminated just in case I am a pirate? Because the former is reasonable, and the latter is insane.[aside] I think it says something odd and interesting about this game that I have already received two votes in the game where I am town, but never received a single one in the entire game where I was scum. It would seem to suggest to me that townie behavior is somehow more suspicious then scummy behavior, which makes the whole thing harder still. [/aside]
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:13:26 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 14:13:26 GMT -5
Nine!? I didn't know it was that many. Umm... KatiRoo, you have one hour. At least I figure you would have role-claimed if you had a special one, so I hope that at worst you're vanilla and crewy. Sorry.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:13:50 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 14:13:50 GMT -5
This cracks me up. Me: Auntbeast, fifteen minutes later: If that's a scum gambit, it's a ridiculously inartful one, so I'm inclined just to this that the timing is hilarious.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:16:11 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 14:16:11 GMT -5
Also:
Me:
Blaster Master, twenty minutes later:
Y'all are just messing with me now. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:16:51 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 25, 2007 14:16:51 GMT -5
snipped Now I'm getting really uncomfortable about either of them. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any more compelling evidence for anyone else either. I WOULD like to hear more from, say, Hockey Monkey, as she does seem to be playing a bit differently than she did in M2; ditto to Zuma. As you may all recall, I played the last game pretty stupidly. I'm trying not to make the same kind of mistakes I did in MII. I'm reading the thread, but don't really have a lot to add as far as analysis right now. I'm also a fair amount busier in RL this go-round. When I get caught up on the thread, most of what I want to say has already been said, so I can't add a lot of new insight. As the game progresses, I'm sure that will change. I don't want to be perceived as trying to fly under the radar, I just don't have anything subtantial to add right now, and I'd rather not post just fluff.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:17:27 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 14:17:27 GMT -5
[aside] I think it says something odd and interesting about this game that I have already received two votes in the game where I am town, but never received a single one in the entire game where I was scum. It would seem to suggest to me that townie behavior is somehow more suspicious then scummy behavior, which makes the whole thing harder still. [/aside] I think this is a very valid observation. Being crew is going to be inherently more suspicious in general because we have no information to go on. If we make a bad judgment, and get called on it, how do we defend it? Plus, crew are more likely to put their necks on the line because otherwise, the pirates can just sit around, be quiet, and let the crew vote pretty much at random. If we DON'T risk something, we lose by default. But by making that risk, we sometimes make a mistake... Did I accidently go after an officer who may get a couple people covering his back? Did I go after vanilla crew, and they get defensive, and we end up in a heated argument over nothing? Meanwhile, the pirates know when to bite their tongues, and they know when to egg on arguments.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:19:45 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 14:19:45 GMT -5
Also: Me: Blaster Master, twenty minutes later: Y'all are just messing with me now. ;D ;D ;D And here I thought I'd just come across as a calculating son of a gun.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:29:33 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 14:29:33 GMT -5
And this is a very valid observation as well. I was going to save this thought for our voting rehash tomorrow, but just in case I'm, y'know, not around then, I wanna say this: It's hard to overstate, based on Mafia II and III, just how easy it is for the bad guys to sit back and let the town/crew do their work for them in the early going. It goes back to what we've been saying about percentages, mostly: odds are that any Day One target is going to be town, so there's no need for the pirates to do any bandwagoning or to lift a single finger in trying to influence public opinion one way or the other. Hell, they don't even need to vote for the person who ultimately gets lynched...in fact, it's better for them if they don't (particularly en masse, obviously), and if they scatter their votes instead. The only time I can envision the pirates really needing to put their oar in (man, I love these accidental puns) during the first couple days is if one of their people is in imminent danger of being lynched. I'd think that even trying to move the lynch from an ineffectual townie to a potentially dangerous townie during Days One or Two would be more risk than reward for smart scum.
All of which is to emphasize, once again, that the only people who aren't operating blindly right now are the pirates and the officers. For the pirates, that means that right now they can *act* like they have no good information far more effectively than those of us who actually *have* no information can. They can blend into the background with relative ease. When we start to analyze voting patterns, we need to keep this in mind.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:31:33 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 25, 2007 14:31:33 GMT -5
Gadarene: I think at this point in the game it would be silly to take whatever we know about the other players, either as people or characters and completely throw it out the window just because we've learned about it outside the vacuum. I was specifically referring to his statement about the vacuum. And giving my perspective on it. Storyteller: I'll be the first to say I come from a long line of crazy women. No arguments there. I merely voted for you because of the reports of your style in the last game, your stance in this game and given the fact your username is storyteller, that you would feel far more comfortable stepping out side your own shoes than a random Joe. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I just don't think it is easy for folks to step outside their basic nature, something a storyteller or actor would find far easier. If you are town this time, rock on good buddy. And just to screw with Gadarene Hi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GUESS WHAT? ? I'm not changing my vote!!!!!!11!!!
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:33:18 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 25, 2007 14:33:18 GMT -5
I'll be getting ready for work now guys, be home around 1am, EST. I must be psychic, it's exactly what I predicted earlier!
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 14:52:00 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 14:52:00 GMT -5
Storyteller: I'll be the first to say I come from a long line of crazy women. No arguments there. I merely voted for you because of the reports of your style in the last game, your stance in this game and given the fact your username is storyteller, that you would feel far more comfortable stepping out side your own shoes than a random Joe. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I just don't think it is easy for folks to step outside their basic nature, something a storyteller or actor would find far easier. If you are town this time, rock on good buddy. Well, the Day is waning, and I have a meeting in ten minutes, and there's a very strong possibility I won't be around to participate anymore by the time the next Day dawns. Accordingly, I'm going to take this chance to note that I very strongly disagree with your philosophy, and I hope that - regardless of what it means for me personally - the town will, too. Thing is, this isn't Survivor, where every single other person is a threat to any given player. Eliminating someone because you perceive them as a strong player - who would thus be a dangerous pirate - isn't a winning strategy. First of all, it's literally random. All of the things you've said about me would be equally true whether I was scum or crew, so your chances of hitting scum with this approach are the same as they would be using random.org. You should vote for people you think are pirates, not for people you think are dangerous pirates (I'd note that the converse is true: I don't think I should be lynched because I'm town, not because I'm a "strong player"). But there's a larger problem with this approach, which is its implications for later in the game. If the plan is to vote for people who are perceived as strong, active, or leader-type players, what's the next step after me? BlasterMaster was an exceptionally good player in the last game, I thought; Gadarene is doing a lot of analysis and is likely to assume something of a leadership role going forward. Shall we eliminate those two, as well, just in case they're pirates? Well, that means cutting out people who are supplying a lot of analysis, for no better than a random chance of hitting scum. Plus, it's going to make the remaining townies even more paranoid. They'll try to avoid posting a lot of analysis, going out on limbs, or doing anything that might be perceived as leadership, because we're substituting those qualities for scum tells and no townie wants to get lynched. The next effect would be a freezing of discussion, which benefits the guys with the eye-patches and peg-legs way more than it benefits the crew. Vote for people you think are likely to be pirates; make that my epitaph if somebody shivs me tonight.
|
|