|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:04:49 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 17:04:49 GMT -5
I didn't accuse her. I just pointed out the fact that it could be she wanted a clearer view of what's what but it could also be she was a pirate "fishing" for extra info and foresight. If I was accusing her, I'd have voted for her myself. But since I think that's coming on too strong, at least right here and now, I didn't and found it odd others did. Not just one. Two. That'd be a pretty easy start of a bandwagon. Well I am not voting for you yet, but that whole line of reasoning seems somewhat scummy. Let me tell ya why, the only really substantive thing you have said was (at least to me) your post to cowgirl. I actually agree that it is surprising that she got the votes that she did, but it just strikes me as though you are saying "hey look over here guys." Maybe I am wrong? I am not certain enough to vote for you, that's for sure. But will I keep my FOS where it is.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:07:03 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on May 22, 2007 17:07:03 GMT -5
I have to say, reading through what we have so far, the only person I get a real read off of is cowgirl...So, to sum up, let's disregard substantive strategy ('cuz it's, like, hard and stuff) and just go with our guts? Bonk! Wrong answer. Frankly I think this is a setup to avoid being hammered down on the whys and wherefores of voting, and to discourage logical analysis. Allow me to restate and clarify. I am all about posting reasoning and strategy and so on, and I encourage it where possible. My two main concerns are (a) relying on apparent alliances that emerge when people agree (or disagree strongly) on strategies that turn out to be faulty, [which is often because of] (b) relying too much on faulty assumptions My concern is when combinations of (a) and (b) turn into big (and totally mistaken) bandwagons. By all means, logically analyze as much as possible. My suggestion is to hold off on the "Okay, all aboard this plan!" - to ANY plan or strategy. "It's, like, hard and stuff" is something of a misrepresentation. I consider it more aligned with a definition of agnosticism that says "believe nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses." At this point, nothing can be demonstrated by the senses, so I'm not going to waste my time deciding whether to believe it or not. In short: don't "disregard" substantive strategy in the sense of contemplating and discussing it at all conceivable levels - that's what this game is about! The goal of analysis should be the process of it - the discussions, assumptions, agreements, disagreements, revisions, etc. It should not be signing on to (or believing) one or another. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:16:02 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 17:16:02 GMT -5
Also the people with no read may be problamatic down the line. But it is harder for me to know what to do with them. People like ArizonaTeach just don't give off strong vibes. I don't know a way around that one. I personally am suspicious of people who have very few posts. Granted, some of us are working, and don't have access to the board at all times, but if the day wears on and a certain player has posted very little, I mentally put down a Pirate? check next to their name.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -5
Again, I don't know how helpful this will be, but it is easier to have it all here in one place:
Here are the votes from the Google Group day.
Blaster Master Voted for (MtS then, Diggit Camera) Pleonast Voted for (capybara, then Kyrie Eleison, then KatiRoo) FCoD Voted for (panamajack) Idle Thoughts Voted for (Hockey Monkey) KatiRoo Voted for (Diggit Camera) NAF1138 Voted for (Blaster Master)
These are the only people to vote that day, this is the order they voted.
Again, don't know if it will be helpful now, but maybe in a couple of Day's it will be good to have this here.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:50:59 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 22, 2007 17:50:59 GMT -5
Idle Thoughts, what you said was: Funny you should add that last sentence. My thoughts would be, if anything, you were actually scum trying to learn more about them and know what to look for. That's pretty clear: either you have no thoughts, or you think she's a pirate. Which is not even close to the portrait of equanimity you paint when you say: I didn't accuse her. I just pointed out the fact that it could be she wanted a clearer view of what's what but it could also be she was a pirate "fishing" for extra info and foresight. In no way did you point out or even allow for the possibility that "it could be she wanted a clearer view of what's what." I agree with NAF's characterization of your post as a subtle accusation. Frankly, when I read it, I was surprised that you didn't follow it with a vote.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 17:55:21 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 22, 2007 17:55:21 GMT -5
Well, looks like we're past the point that random votes is helpful. Instead, I'd rather call out players who haven't posted much, although we've been on the new ship too short to really do that. So what to do? It's great that lots of us are posting strategy, but I'm not going to base my vote on that. I'd rather vote based on specific lines of reasoning (why so and so voted for who and who). And with no votes yet, that leaves me with little to work with. I am proponent of early-and-often votes, so I'll try to find a reason to vote for someone soon. It's easy enough to change one's vote later. At least if they haven't taken a step too far off the end of a plank.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:11:05 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 18:11:05 GMT -5
Idle Thoughts, what you said was: Funny you should add that last sentence. My thoughts would be, if anything, you were actually scum trying to learn more about them and know what to look for. That's pretty clear: either you have no thoughts, or you think she's a pirate. Which is not even close to the portrait of equanimity you paint when you say: I didn't accuse her. I just pointed out the fact that it could be she wanted a clearer view of what's what but it could also be she was a pirate "fishing" for extra info and foresight. In no way did you point out or even allow for the possibility that "it could be she wanted a clearer view of what's what." Actually, I did in my next post, mostly. I made the post you're quoting, she made a post to me, and then I made another post after hers. All of this sudden aggressive play IS, actually, giving me suspicions now. I'm an aggressive player myself, I like to think. But I think it's foolish in the first round to be really quick to pile on someone. Unless that's your secret motive.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:12:14 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 22, 2007 18:12:14 GMT -5
I see Auntbeast and Zuma have yet to register.I will vote Auntbeast
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:13:33 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 18:13:33 GMT -5
That was very enlightening, Mad The Swine.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:13:48 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 18:13:48 GMT -5
What's with the blank post?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:15:09 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 22, 2007 18:15:09 GMT -5
Sorry bout that ...hit the wrong button.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:18:13 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 22, 2007 18:18:13 GMT -5
Guess I should ask if we are allowed to edit.
Vote Auntbeast
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:21:54 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 22, 2007 18:21:54 GMT -5
Guess I should ask if we are allowed to edit. Vote Auntbeast You're not, so sayeth the Lord of Mars. Unless (of course) you're a pirate. No limes for you!
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:21:59 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 18:21:59 GMT -5
I agree that a random – or arbitrary – early vote is probably not going to garner much new information, but reaction seems to be the only way at this point to get any tells on our fellow shipmates.
That being said, I’m not sure that anyone that claims that more information is always good for the sailors, bad for the pirates is necessarily on the side of the angels. While I’m not ready to vote on it, yet, aggressive players are my short list for scummies.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:28:42 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 18:28:42 GMT -5
I agree that a random – or arbitrary – early vote is probably not going to garner much new information, but reaction seems to be the only way at this point to get any tells on our fellow shipmates. That being said, I’m not sure that anyone that claims that more information is always good for the sailors, bad for the pirates is necessarily on the side of the angels. While I’m not ready to vote on it, yet, aggressive players are my short list for scummies. Care to elaborate? I ask because not long ago you said: These don't directly contradict, but using this method of suspicion you seem to only eliminate the people who aren't actually playing.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:36:51 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 22, 2007 18:36:51 GMT -5
Two votes doesn't count as a pile-on yet, but it may get people talking. I'd like you to go into some more detail about statements made in post #73 and on the other boat. A) The oddness with Hockey Monkey, and B) you had a lot to say about random but nothing really new to add and b') didn't provide much deeper insight into your thoughts about it-- very plainly presented and without much sharing much in terms of thoughts about what helps whom, while you're smart enough for all of that to have occurred to and chatty enough to have gone into more depth; b") as if you were sort of jumping on the prevailing current at that moment, C) and then the invitation to vote on you as well (all of which doesn't jive with your current suspicions about early aggressive play) (which doesn't jive with your current mildly aggressive play-- horseplay)
I see any number of possible motivations at play.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:37:34 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 22, 2007 18:37:34 GMT -5
Sorry, that was addressed to Idle Thoughts.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:41:18 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 18:41:18 GMT -5
I agree that a random – or arbitrary – early vote is probably not going to garner much new information, but reaction seems to be the only way at this point to get any tells on our fellow shipmates. That being said, I’m not sure that anyone that claims that more information is always good for the sailors, bad for the pirates is necessarily on the side of the angels. While I’m not ready to vote on it, yet, aggressive players are my short list for scummies. Care to elaborate? I ask because not long ago you said: These don't directly contradict, but using this method of suspicion you seem to only eliminate the people who aren't actually playing. Actually, I am suspicious of players who are not posting, at least a few posts. As i said, my suspicions will change over the course of the day, based on what they post and when they post it. Obviously it's not the deciding factor in my final voting, but it probably will be a factor of some sort. If you don't post, I'm suspicious of you. Might as well have it out in the open.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 18:51:19 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 18:51:19 GMT -5
Actually, I am suspicious of players who are not posting, at least a few posts. As i said, my suspicions will change over the course of the day, based on what they post and when they post it. Obviously it's not the deciding factor in my final voting, but it probably will be a factor of some sort. If you don't post, I'm suspicious of you. Might as well have it out in the open. No, that part I get. What I wanted you to elaborate on was you being suspicious agressive players too. How, why? Because as it stands you find posting a lot suspicious and you find not posting a lot suspicious. Where does this leave you?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:03:35 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 22, 2007 19:03:35 GMT -5
Actually, I am suspicious of players who are not posting, at least a few posts. As i said, my suspicions will change over the course of the day, based on what they post and when they post it. Obviously it's not the deciding factor in my final voting, but it probably will be a factor of some sort. If you don't post, I'm suspicious of you. Might as well have it out in the open. I think we should look at those who are posting an average amount of times. No, that part I get. What I wanted you to elaborate on was you being suspicious agressive players too. How, why? Because as it stands you find posting a lot suspicious and you find not posting a lot suspicious. Where does this leave you?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:04:47 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 22, 2007 19:04:47 GMT -5
Crap....sorry bout that....I will figure this out soon.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:05:15 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 19:05:15 GMT -5
Actually, I am suspicious of players who are not posting, at least a few posts. As i said, my suspicions will change over the course of the day, based on what they post and when they post it. Obviously it's not the deciding factor in my final voting, but it probably will be a factor of some sort. If you don't post, I'm suspicious of you. Might as well have it out in the open. No, that part I get. What I wanted you to elaborate on was you being suspicious agressive players too. How, why? Because as it stands you find posting a lot suspicious and you find not posting a lot suspicious. Where does this leave you? Suspicious of both, maybe? Suspicious of non-posters because they are not giving me anything to base my decisions on. I can see this as a scummy tell, especially on Day One. Why should pirates give me anything to make me think that they’re not pirates. Suspicious of aggressive posters because, well I guess I think that the pirates will be using the “best defense is a good offense” strategy. I dunno. It just feels right to me.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:06:53 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 22, 2007 19:06:53 GMT -5
Mom...Mad is posting blank responses again. Make him stop!!!
Seriously though, lots of very quiet folks on this ship. Is there a stash of opium that I'm not aware of, or are the Pirates getting an early start on offing us?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:07:35 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 22, 2007 19:07:35 GMT -5
Suspicious of both, maybe? Suspicious of non-posters because they are not giving me anything to base my decisions on. I can see this as a scummy tell, especially on Day One. Why should pirates give me anything to make me think that they’re not pirates. Suspicious of aggressive posters because, well I guess I think that the pirates will be using the “best defense is a good offense” strategy. I dunno. It just feels right to me. Cool, just wanted to know where you stood.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:07:53 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 19:07:53 GMT -5
Mom...Mad is posting blank responses again. Make him stop!!! Seriously though, lots of very quiet folks on this ship. Is there a stash of opium that I'm not aware of, or are the Pirates getting an early start on offing us? OK, whos got the chocolate?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:13:13 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 22, 2007 19:13:13 GMT -5
Snerk. . .Whuzzuh? Opiuhuzzuh? [hookah stem falls from mouth while flailing off balance in the hammock] spiders! Get them OFF. .. This swabbie's gotta go land-side to watch land-lubbers race velocipedes for a while and drink gin. Ahoy hoy!
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:14:29 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 22, 2007 19:14:29 GMT -5
Lift one for me, capy. Us rodents have to stick together.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:17:42 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 22, 2007 19:17:42 GMT -5
People like ArizonaTeach... Really? You aren't just saying that? Oh. That's what you meant... Well, I've made my position on random voting clear, but I think that's a dead issue. I don't have a strategy, really, except finding pirates. Unfortunately, I'm a day behind in posts here, so I'll have some thoughts when I'm done reading.
|
|
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 22, 2007 19:21:08 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 22, 2007 19:21:08 GMT -5
Vote Idle Thoughts
Because of the previous weirdness when he voted for me because he agreed with me.
Because he agrees with and at the same time FOS's cowgirl.
Because in general seems to be too agreeable.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:23:09 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 22, 2007 19:23:09 GMT -5
Okay, well, as others have said before, the chances that scum (from other games) are scum again in this one are very slim. They're exactly the same as the odds of anyone being scum, no? As you say later, it SHOULD be completely random (another use of the word random there?) so I'm not going to make any assumptions that previous scum isn't scum. There's no "distributing the wealth" in these situations... Now this, I agree with.
|
|