|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:32:35 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 22, 2007 19:32:35 GMT -5
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. True, but this has little bearing on whether NAF's characterization of your first post was accurate. 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. How can you characterize that post as aggressive when you haven't even seen the possibly conciliatory follow up post I might have posted after your response? If I was accusing you, I would have voted for you myself. I agree with you that it's foolish to be quick to pile on someone in the first round. Who do you think has done so? Could I ask you to clarify what my secret motive might be?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:35:14 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 22, 2007 19:35:14 GMT -5
]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. I'll second that. I do find your semi-surprise a little fishy, but I don't think it's a reversal like others have said. However, capybara's immediate vote I found more disturbing.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:41:24 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 22, 2007 19:41:24 GMT -5
I agree with you that it's foolish to be quick to pile on someone in the first round. Who do you think has done so? Could I ask you to clarify what my secret motive might be? Well, speaking for myself, pile-on might be strong, but after the original FOS, capybara's immediate, relatively unexplained vote, plus hockeymonkey's vote, bugs me. Maybe it's just because I'm nowhere NEAR the voting stage now, and I'm a little bothered by people who think they are right now...just as KatiRoo (I think) who's a little miffed at low posters.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:47:48 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 19:47:48 GMT -5
Well, whatever. Vote for me if you want. I'm not going to be all defensive because I don't have anything to be all defensive about. If you really feel I'm suspicious enough to vote for, have at it.
Me, I'm going to read a few more posts and wait a bit more before casting one.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 19:49:43 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 19:49:43 GMT -5
I agree with you that it's foolish to be quick to pile on someone in the first round. Who do you think has done so? Could I ask you to clarify what my secret motive might be? I think you have with your vote of Cowgirl and also fluiddruid for the same reason.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 20:01:23 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 22, 2007 20:01:23 GMT -5
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. Suspicious of EVERYONE. Remember: You don' know what role ANYONE has until Malacandra tells us...
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 20:08:16 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 22, 2007 20:08:16 GMT -5
Capybara gave reasons for capybara's vote in post. . . #105. Capybara's vote is totally liable to move around, but a little pressure here and there can't hurt right now. My motives aren't secret or clever. I think of it as an icebreaker. After all, it's not like these are permanent votes this early. Just prodding-- I figured if one vote wasn't making anyone talk two votes and a little pressure might. In fact. unvote Idle Thoughts. Largely because of the character of his responses (neither squealing nor volunteering much new). I'm going to save my suspicions for when the lost-post people start chatting a bit more later. NOW off to Bombay and tonic. . . Quinine, you know.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 20:11:28 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 22, 2007 20:11:28 GMT -5
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. While I agree about suspicion of players who say little, I find your suspicion of aggressive players to be, well, suspicious. I don't know which Mafia games you've followed, but one thing I learned in M2 is that aggressive play is indicative of an engaged player, not a scummy player. It's no indication either way. My vote for you whilst on SS Googlegroups was a random one. This one is not: ++Vote KatiRoo++Of course, being so early in the game, it will be easy for you to assuage my suspicion. I don't really find you that suspicious overall, anyway, but it's early, so I'm tossing in my vote.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 20:26:19 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 22, 2007 20:26:19 GMT -5
Maybe it's just because I'm nowhere NEAR the voting stage now, and I'm a little bothered by people who think they are right now...just as KatiRoo (I think) who's a little miffed at low posters. That's perfectly legitimate, and I know that others agree with you. However, I think we're always at a voting stage during the day. Just as you are wary of those too quick to vote, I'm leery of the idea of leaving all of the voting until the last minute. In my limited experience, the good guys are too easily swayed by recent developments and bandwagoneering when the deadline is approaching and too many votes are outstanding. I prefer to see the crew's consensus forming over time, rather than a last minute rush to judgment.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 20:32:29 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 22, 2007 20:32:29 GMT -5
I think you have with your vote of Cowgirl and also fluiddruid for the same reason. Now I am confused. On what pile was I piling on with my vote? Not to belabor the point, but you've disclaimed making any accusation of cowgirl, leaving me befuddled as to what you think forms the base of the pile.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 21:30:55 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 22, 2007 21:30:55 GMT -5
I, for one, shall be staying out of this apparent early voting spree. It feels like it could have the potential of being a feeding frenzy. On the other hand, it may prove to be harmless, but... vague, early suspicions (be they ultimately accurate or not) seem to follow players throughout the rest of the game, and can drown out logical, valid analysis later.
It may sound like I'm discouraging discussion of suspicion, but that is not the case. I'd be a hypocrite if I said the same thing about vague and early FOSing. But all of these actual votes flying around (and the vote changes) look very different 5 Days into the game than they do now. People look at voting history a lot, building spreadsheets and whathaveyou, but even when attempting to be objective when looking back at early votes (and even when the voter is posting quotes from back in Day 1 to justify their vote), votes have a tendancy to take on a subjective life of their own in the eye of the beholder.
Are you voters all confident that your votes will accurately be seen for what they truly are much father into the game?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 22:35:53 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 22:35:53 GMT -5
Two votes doesn't count as a pile-on yet, but it may get people talking. I disagree. Even with just two votes, it makes it easy for scum to take over. Let's suppose both of them are town and cowgirl REALLY is town too (and they'll say they are regardless, no matter what), then that's already two votes for someone by people who really are just guessing. How easy would it be then, for scum to come in and start piling on? Even if just one or two got their votes in in the mesh (because I seriously doubt they'd be stupid enough to all vote for her), it puts a threat on someone's life in the game.
I dunno, but me, I just tend to really grow suspicious of early and hard bandwagons or, in this case, possible pre-bandwagons.
What what? I already answered this over there. I found it odd he put it out there that it was random. It's been my experience that this is something possible scum does a lot. But see, it really IS quite random. I think this too. I agree with him. But are you going to see me out and out SAY it so strongly in a post (save for right now when you're questioning my motives)? No. Not unless I have to explain my posts.
So I voted on him, even though I agreed with the sense, because he voiced it, not because he thought it. Because everyone should KNOW, without saying, that there's a large part of randomness to the first round. Saying it just seems to appear like you're trying to get everyone to think it's random for you when in some cases, it's really not.
So I guess it comes down to: I don't see why people have to say "oohh who should I vote for? It's so random." We all know there's a certain amount already. Why the need to hone it in?
Well there you go. Sorry I failed to explain something I thought made sense already or seemed reasonable. : p
It doesn't matter. If I say "NO, don't vote for me. I'm a good guy!" that's seen as too defensive. And I'm not worried because in the end, if I'm killed off, you'll all see what a horrible mistake you made and maybe something can be learned from my death.
I have nothing to fear in this game. That's what's so great about actually being pro-good. Either way, people will vote for you because either A: they see things and get suspicions that grow and fester and start seeing suspicion in all of your posts or B: they're really pirates and want to get you out.
|
|
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 22:36:21 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 22, 2007 22:36:21 GMT -5
I agree with you that it's foolish to be quick to pile on someone in the first round. Who do you think has done so? Could I ask you to clarify what my secret motive might be? Well, speaking for myself, pile-on might be strong, but after the original FOS, capybara's immediate, relatively unexplained vote, plus hockeymonkey's vote, bugs me. Maybe it's just because I'm nowhere NEAR the voting stage now, and I'm a little bothered by people who think they are right now...just as KatiRoo (I think) who's a little miffed at low posters. I'm voting now because I want to get and give information to be able to make decisions about who to cast my final vote for. Early votes are not set in stone. I'll most likely change my mind about it before the end of the Day. I explained my reason for the vote. Idle Thoughts has made some posts that seem to be all over the place. If I am reading them wrong, he should have a chance to explain before the Eleventh Hour, so I can change my vote if necessary.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 22:39:28 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 22:39:28 GMT -5
Could I ask you to clarify what my secret motive might be? I have no idea. Maybe because you're a pirate and want to bump off or help along as many people not on your side as you can?
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 22:40:23 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 22:40:23 GMT -5
Capybara gave reasons for capybara's vote in post. . . #105. Capybara's vote is totally liable to move around, but a little pressure here and there can't hurt right now. My motives aren't secret or clever. I think of it as an icebreaker. After all, it's not like these are permanent votes this early. Just prodding-- I figured if one vote wasn't making anyone talk two votes and a little pressure might. In fact. unvote Idle Thoughts. Largely because of the character of his responses (neither squealing nor volunteering much new). I'm going to save my suspicions for when the lost-post people start chatting a bit more later. NOW off to Bombay and tonic. . . Quinine, you know. Hahah, well I guess it would help if I caught up on the topic before replying. : p
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 22:47:18 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 22, 2007 22:47:18 GMT -5
I think you have with your vote of Cowgirl and also fluiddruid for the same reason. Now I am confused. On what pile was I piling on with my vote? Not to belabor the point, but you've disclaimed making any accusation of cowgirl, leaving me befuddled as to what you think forms the base of the pile. I said it before and I'll say it again. I was not ACCUSING cowgirl. If I was accusing her, I would have voted for her. Instead I merely pointed out an observation I was making..that iher question, if anything, would make me (and possibly others) think she could very well ALSO be a pirate. I wasn't saying "I think you're a pirate". I said based on her question, it would make me think that and thus have my suspicions grow for her. If you really think that what I was saying was an accusation, then you're either misreading or mistaking it or deliberately twisting it around so any vote for me in the future by you would be "explained" in your mind/words. Also, I note your avatar. And this is another thing that doesn't go well with me. Why the avatars, people? You know what I think, personally? I think that an actual pirate, just to throw people off and have a secret laugh, would actually USE an avatar of a pirate, just so, in the end, they could say it was in front of our faces all long. Please note: I'm NOT saying everyone who has one is a pirate nor I'm I suspicious of everyone with one. I'm just saying, it wouldn't surprise me to find out at least ONE of them was, though..and since you have one and are also seemingly being purposefully obtuse to my explainations... Vote Kyrie Eleison
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 23:10:50 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 22, 2007 23:10:50 GMT -5
Speaking of which: Your assumption (i.e. that I am scum looking for tips for finding power roles) is equally valid as its opposite (i.e. that I am a power role looking for help), which is equally valid as the assumption that I am being completely forthright (i.e. that I am some kind of townie looking for help about how I might interpret other posters' behaviour). Cowgirl, I can only distinguish your role by what you post. While, given nothing else, all of these cases are equally valid, the sort of discussion you're asking for, namely, how to interpret other poster's writings in light of the power roles they might hold, is exactly the sort of discussion we need not to have. Unvote: NAF1138 Vote: cowgirl Color deleted. I don't think she was asking how we can interpret posters writings. She only asked how the power roles should be playing the game. She said: Also I have another question (although I think it's what got me targetted last time): can we discuss the power roles a little? I'm not particularly game-minded so I'm having a hard time figuring out what the roles mean, particularly since they are a bit different every time. What would we expect people in the power roles to be doing? Note I am not asking for strategy - what would we be doing to find them. I just want to know what they might be up to. (Please don't night kill me - I'm not asking for tips!) Where do you see a mention of interpreting someone's writings? I believe she legitimately wants to know what power roles should be doing because either she is a power role, or she did not know what to do last game and is worried that the current power roles might be just as confused.
|
|
|
Day One
May 22, 2007 23:13:19 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 22, 2007 23:13:19 GMT -5
Ok, back from quinine infusion, so not to post too much in my period of mental. . . um. . . fantabulousness, and get myself shivved in the night, but. . . Idle. Please, now. You're reading hints from avatars? Kyrie's (nor mine) is specifically pirate-oriented; I was paranoiacly careful not to use a tricorner hat or skull and crossbones or whatever because of conspiracy theory wackos' chances of reading it wrong. Avatars are just a moment for weak hilariousness and jolly jolly. So I like Photoshop. There are overt laughs in addition to covert ones. We're used to the SDMB-- this is a chance for a rare moment of anything customised at all. It's PIRATES! Shit. How cool is that? Let people play with the avatars. Your pinpointing them as symptomatic is a little pantytwisted. Your explanation at the end of your post almost moots your whole post (so 1/4 people have avatars and ONE OF THEM TURNS OUT TO BE A PIRATE? Par for course, no?). I think you're fishing. And I bit. But. . . that's pretty weak reasoning for a Kyrie vote, no?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 0:09:33 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 23, 2007 0:09:33 GMT -5
Where do you see a mention of interpreting someone's writings? I believe she legitimately wants to know what power roles should be doing because either she is a power role, or she did not know what to do last game and is worried that the current power roles might be just as confused. A fair question. I find it here: Your assumption (i.e. that I am scum looking for tips for finding power roles) is equally valid as its opposite (i.e. that I am a power role looking for help), which is equally valid as the assumption that I am being completely forthright (i.e. that I am some kind of townie looking for help about how I might interpret other posters' behaviour). [emphasis mine] In a game where everything we do publicly is represented by the words we write, I interpreted "behaviour" to mean "writings." I'm open to alternate interpretations, but I confess I'm unable to imagine any reasonable ones on my own. To be frank, I don't find my own case against cowgirl terribly compelling, and dearly hope that something more concrete emerges before the day is done. At this point, though, pickings are thin, and this is the best evidence I can find that anyone is more likely to be a pirate than anyone else.
|
|
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 23, 2007 0:11:52 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 23, 2007 0:11:52 GMT -5
Now I am confused. On what pile was I piling on with my vote? Not to belabor the point, but you've disclaimed making any accusation of cowgirl, leaving me befuddled as to what you think forms the base of the pile. I said it before and I'll say it again. I was not ACCUSING cowgirl. If I was accusing her, I would have voted for her. Instead I merely pointed out an observation I was making..that iher question, if anything, would make me (and possibly others) think she could very well ALSO be a pirate. I wasn't saying "I think you're a pirate". I said based on her question, it would make me think that and thus have my suspicions grow for her. If you really think that what I was saying was an accusation, then you're either misreading or mistaking it or deliberately twisting it around so any vote for me in the future by you would be "explained" in your mind/words. Also, I note your avatar. And this is another thing that doesn't go well with me. Why the avatars, people? You know what I think, personally? I think that an actual pirate, just to throw people off and have a secret laugh, would actually USE an avatar of a pirate, just so, in the end, they could say it was in front of our faces all long. Please note: I'm NOT saying everyone who has one is a pirate nor I'm I suspicious of everyone with one. I'm just saying, it wouldn't surprise me to find out at least ONE of them was, though..and since you have one and are also seemingly being purposefully obtuse to my explainations... Vote Kyrie EleisonHere is another post that says you think something, but at the end you say you don't think it. Either you are very confused or you are trying to set yourself up to be able to say "See I brought that up, I thought that!" whichever way the chips fall. Really? The Avatars are bothering you? I was stoked when I saw that we would be able to personalize a bit. I originally was going to go with a Dread Pirate Roberts Franchise logo, but it was hard to read. Also, everytime I hear the word "pirate" I also hear Jerry Seinfeld saying "But I don't wanna be a pirate" right behind it. I found the picture of him in the puffy shirt, and it honestly makes me giggle every time I see it. And the game is PIRATE THEMED! Lighten up a bit. I am beginning to see you more as a confused deckhand who's had more than one whack on the noggin than a pirate because I don't think a pirate would be posting in such a manner.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 1:46:54 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 23, 2007 1:46:54 GMT -5
Where do you see a mention of interpreting someone's writings? I believe she legitimately wants to know what power roles should be doing because either she is a power role, or she did not know what to do last game and is worried that the current power roles might be just as confused. A fair question. I find it here: Your assumption (i.e. that I am scum looking for tips for finding power roles) is equally valid as its opposite (i.e. that I am a power role looking for help), which is equally valid as the assumption that I am being completely forthright (i.e. that I am some kind of townie looking for help about how I might interpret other posters' behaviour). [emphasis mine] In a game where everything we do publicly is represented by the words we write, I interpreted "behaviour" to mean "writings." I'm open to alternate interpretations, but I confess I'm unable to imagine any reasonable ones on my own. She was talking about assumptions you might have, she was not asking for any sort of discussion on this issue like you said she was. To be frank, I don't find my own case against cowgirl terribly compelling, and dearly hope that something more concrete emerges before the day is done. At this point, though, pickings are thin, and this is the best evidence I can find that anyone is more likely to be a pirate than anyone else. Fair enough, but then you won't mind if I vote for you right? I really don't like the reasons you voted for cowgirl, so until something better comes along... Vote Kyrie Eleison.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 2:35:44 GMT -5
Post by Kyrie Eleison on May 23, 2007 2:35:44 GMT -5
She was talking about assumptions you might have, she was not asking for any sort of discussion on this issue like you said she was. ... Fair enough, but then you won't mind if I vote for you right? I don't mind at all, but you put me in a difficult position. In each alternative cowgirl offered, she said that she was "looking for" something: Your assumption (i.e. that I am scum looking for tips for finding power roles) is equally valid as its opposite (i.e. that I am a power role looking for help), which is equally valid as the assumption that I am being completely forthright (i.e. that I am some kind of townie looking for help about how I might interpret other posters' behaviour). [bolding mine] If that something wasn't discussion, what was it? If there's no credible alternative, then I have to choose between you opportunistically misunderstanding, or you mistakenly misunderstanding. Lakai, what was cowgirl looking for?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 8:36:48 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 23, 2007 8:36:48 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't around for this discussion last night (Tuesdays are American Idol night! Well, they were); I'm going to have to read through and figure out what I think.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:17:06 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 23, 2007 9:17:06 GMT -5
She was talking about assumptions you might have, she was not asking for any sort of discussion on this issue like you said she was. ... Fair enough, but then you won't mind if I vote for you right? I don't mind at all, but you put me in a difficult position. In each alternative cowgirl offered, she said that she was "looking for" something: Your assumption (i.e. that I am scum looking for tips for finding power roles) is equally valid as its opposite (i.e. that I am a power role looking for help), which is equally valid as the assumption that I am being completely forthright (i.e. that I am some kind of townie looking for help about how I might interpret other posters' behaviour). [bolding mine] If that something wasn't discussion, what was it? If there's no credible alternative, then I have to choose between you opportunistically misunderstanding, or you mistakenly misunderstanding. Lakai, what was cowgirl looking for? She said your assumption was that she was looking for something. If it was what she thinks you are assuming then it was not what she wanted to do. The only reason she said all three points were valid was to show that anything to think of her statements is valid at this point.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:30:06 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 23, 2007 9:30:06 GMT -5
I, for one, shall be staying out of this apparent early voting spree. It feels like it could have the potential of being a feeding frenzy. On the other hand, it may prove to be harmless, but... vague, early suspicions (be they ultimately accurate or not) seem to follow players throughout the rest of the game, and can drown out logical, valid analysis later. It may sound like I'm discouraging discussion of suspicion, but that is not the case. I'd be a hypocrite if I said the same thing about vague and early FOSing. But all of these actual votes flying around (and the vote changes) look very different 5 Days into the game than they do now. People look at voting history a lot, building spreadsheets and whathaveyou, but even when attempting to be objective when looking back at early votes (and even when the voter is posting quotes from back in Day 1 to justify their vote), votes have a tendancy to take on a subjective life of their own in the eye of the beholder. Are you voters all confident that your votes will accurately be seen for what they truly are much father into the game? I believe early voting is an excellent way to build consensus. Talk is just talk; if my suspicion is strong enough to be meaningful, I'll step up to the table and mark my vote for everyone to see. Yes, we need to be careful of how people will later interpret earlier votes. But that's later. Someone mis-characterizing early votes can be called on it. In fact, it'd be something to watch for. Likewise for bandwagoning. Remember the warnings about the scum being smart? Well, everyone here is smart. I think we'll catch on to someone being bandwagoned, especially so early in the game. So I stand by early votes in general. I also support players changing votes based changing developments. This is the early stage of the game, a little evidence/suspicion can make large changes. But, please, criticize any abuse of voting you see, too.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:34:57 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 9:34:57 GMT -5
It's also entirely possible that none of the players squabbling in the last 2 pages are pirates, and that the pirates (save one or two 'proactive' pirates) are just pretending to be asleep in their hammocks as they snigger inwardly. . . I'm not suspicious of people with zero post count as much as those with one or three posts.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:37:28 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 9:37:28 GMT -5
I'm also suspicious of invisible users. . .
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:38:24 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 23, 2007 9:38:24 GMT -5
capybara:Just what do you have against sblack people?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:43:07 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 9:43:07 GMT -5
Oh, my! it's one of those boards! Let try this: "fuck."
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 9:43:40 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 9:43:40 GMT -5
Kike? Fag?
|
|