|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 23:42:59 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 26, 2009 23:42:59 GMT -5
Okay, roles and game state now:
Dead Roles Town Contrarian/3rd-party candidate Town Doctor Vanilla Scum Third-Party Roleblocker
Other Definite Roles Mercenary Thief
Claimed Roles Mandatory Vig Mason
Other Possible Roles Terrorist
Inferred Roles Jailerish-type Dude
So, let's go ahead and bang this out. We've got 27 people to start with. For balancing purposes, I'd say there's 5-6 scum. With the amount of kills and the possibility that there were more killing roles than kills, I'd lean towards 5 scum balance-wise, with maybe a sixth investigator-type that doesn't start with the scum to off-set the balance. Using the JSexton formula, a SK-type is balanced as a vanilla scum, I'd say no more than 6 scum. In Apocalypse I had 25 people and 5 scum + an SK, and I'd say my game was fairly balanced. (toot toot tooting my own horn)
Let's go with worst-case scenario first, and have 6 scum + SK. 27 - 7 = 20 left. Worst-case means both mercenary and thief are non-scum AND non-town, so losing two more town to those brings us to 18 town. Then, worst-case we're assuming the merc and thief are working individually, which means they wouldn't be a part of the peacekeeper faction, so let's assume that third-party faction is what...3 or 4 to give them a fair shot at whatever their win condition is. Let's go 4 for worst-case, bringing us to 14 left for town. And we know that there was a 3rd-party candidate role, which worst case means that they can become third-party which leaves them in limbo between town and 3rd-party. Assuming that's not a unique role (one other should suffice for this scenario) that leaves 12 pure town. So then we have:
12 town 2 town-that-can-be-3rd-party 4 third-party peacekeeping 1 third-party merc 1 third-party thief 1 third-party serial killer 6 scum
In this scenario, the non-town (including the possible changers) outnumber the town 15-12. Even including them, it's still 14-13, barely in town's favor numerically. So therefore to combat this there is probably a lot of power roles for the town. Cop, doc, vig (mandatory screws with the JSex formula), a couple of masons, possibly 3? That's 6 out of 12 right there. Maybe a backup something. Jailer could be town-aligned too.
This leads me to my point: In this worst-case scenario, there would probably be at most 2 vanilla town. And even in this worst-case scenario I've left out the possible terrorist, who could also be third-party subtracting another number. So, knowing there's only a couple vanilla town, would the mod flub up a vanilla PM? Possibly.
Now best-case scenario:
15 town (merc is town) 2 town that can be third-party 4 third-party peacekeepers 1 SK 5 scum (thief and terrorist both scum)
In best-case, it's more likely the town will have plentiful vanilla on their side. But if there's plentiful vanilla, it begs the question why would the mod mess up Cookies' PM but not the others, especially with the seemingly easy cut-and-paste job?
My general guess to the scenario is this:
13 town 2 town that can be third-party (?) 1 third-party merc (with a survivor-type win condition) 4 third-party peacekeepers (jailer is one of the peacekeepers, possibly more than one roleblocker for peacekeeping purposes) 1 SK 6 scum (one of which is a terrorist, one of which is the thief, one of which doesn't start with the rest of the scum)
This scenario leans more towards worst-case, so I am very shaky in trusting Cookies. Possible guess is that she was trying to set up the Day 3 lynch with her thing and didn't know that NAF would get information about it. I don't trust that she's vanilla town.
However, this is easily something that can be fixed with more data points. As all the deaths so far have been non-vanilla town roles, but only two of those were town, we can see just how plentiful the vanilla spread is. So I'm not up for lynching Cookies yet. I am, however, highly wary of her.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 23:55:17 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2009 23:55:17 GMT -5
All that just to FOS Cookies? Or was there more of a point to all that assumption-filled conjecture?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 0:09:02 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 27, 2009 0:09:02 GMT -5
If you had to describe me in ONE word, wouldn't "inconsistent" do fairly well? I don't think I'm supposed to comment on ongoing games that are being played elsewhere, but in general, sometimes I vote for someone based on gut feeling which everyone hates so I will say something to justify my vote rather than saying "I just really feel she's scum." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you telling me that I should disregard reasons you put forth for making votes because sometimes you just make them up? It seems to me that is exactly what he's saying. Unvote: Ed
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 0:14:22 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Jul 27, 2009 0:14:22 GMT -5
I'm getting the whole "bringing a gun to rock, paper, scissors" vibe. Also, can we be a bit more clearer on who was killed and whatnot. I mean, I got it after caching pages 1-4 in my browser like a gazillion times (if you guys had ads, we'd all have Porches!) but if the "official" posts could be a bit less jargony and more "this person was an astronaut!" or whatever the case may be, just to cut down on the eyeball boggling. just a suggestion. I mean, when the habitual Arkham Horror player is calling this game a bit wordy and hard to follow...well....
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 0:18:34 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 27, 2009 0:18:34 GMT -5
We know there was a town-aligned role inscribed with "3rd-party candidate." Now, Hawkmod has said in the rules that there is no recruitment in the game. So my guess is the role knew of its 3rd-party candidacy and could fulfill some requirement to gain 3rd-party status should they choose to. This doesn't preclude the possibility of others also having this ability, and neatly sidesteps the "recruitment" aspect because it leaves it up to the choice of the player. I read "candidate" as in "candidate for office." In other words, the dead guy is Ralph Nader. Julie, I can see where you got that, but what do you think that would mean? That he wasn't an actual 3rd party in the game, just a guy running on a third party ticket in an election? That's rather confusing.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 0:23:30 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 0:23:30 GMT -5
Vote Pollux[/color]
Of course he doesn't want to lynch me now because the cloud of smoke he's trying to blow up everyone's asses goes poof as soon as I'm dead.
You think I can end the world on Day 3? You think I'm a liar? You should be voting for me.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 8:17:54 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 27, 2009 8:17:54 GMT -5
Julie, I can see where you got that, but what do you think that would mean? That he wasn't an actual 3rd party in the game, just a guy running on a third party ticket in an election? That's rather confusing. That's kinda how I read it, yeah. I'm not saying I'm right by any stretch, but just that other people read a mafia meaning into the words and I read a political one in.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 9:06:03 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 27, 2009 9:06:03 GMT -5
How can you, on the same day in 2 different games vote for one person for supporting a lynch the lurker strategy and vote for another person for lurking because it's a viable Scum strategy? If you had to describe me in ONE word, wouldn't "inconsistent" do fairly well? I don't think I'm supposed to comment on ongoing games that are being played elsewhere, but in general, sometimes I vote for someone based on gut feeling which everyone hates so I will say something to justify my vote rather than saying "I just really feel she's scum." yikes. you'll make shit up to justify a vote? rut roh. vote archangel
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 9:38:08 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 27, 2009 9:38:08 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't think any of this makes any sense. Looks like scum trying desperately to confuse things. Vote: BillMc If I am confusing you, please share with us your clarity of thought on the terrorist situation?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 10:04:29 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 27, 2009 10:04:29 GMT -5
Hockeyguy, I'm a SHE.
I haven't made up anything in THIS game to justify a vote.
I'm pissed at statements I made in another game being dragged into this one though. That seems like metagaming to the point of unfairness to me. Ed, if I were the mod I would have you subbed out for that. (Note to Hawkeye: that's not a comment at you, it's a line I've been dying to throw back at Ed for months now.)
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 10:15:42 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 27, 2009 10:15:42 GMT -5
Sorry about calling you a he. It's a just a habit, I didn't look at your gender then call you male on purpose. Won't happen again.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 10:24:23 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 27, 2009 10:24:23 GMT -5
It's okay...sorry for shouting.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 10:53:34 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 27, 2009 10:53:34 GMT -5
Pleo, It is my MO to be fairly quiet on day 1... and I didn't get on until close to the end of day, and I didn't want to vote with little time left. I feel that people should have time to defend themselves and there has been a few occasions where my vote took someone out because they didn't have time to claim, or post... (ask bill)... I believe voting too close to the end of the day is anti-town... I'm glad you recognize that last minute voting can be anti-Town. The flip side of that coin is that being quiet is also anti-Town. It gives the other players nothing to judge you by. Since you're participating more, I'll take off my vote. But I expect to see more useful contributions from you. unvote CaptPinkI said I was going to vote to lynch a lurker and I don't see any reason currently to change that, so: Vote: JaadeLurkers might BE Town, but they aren't valuable Town because they don't communicate. I can get behind pressuring the non-voters in turn. vote JaadeNote that this vote is not for simply lurking (one post only on Day One), but also for not voting. If you're not going to play for the Town, I see no reason to keep you around. Tell us what you think of other players. Be specific about the player and what they've said. Vagueness is a classic way for Rebels to avoid accountability. And please vote for whoever you think is most suspicious. You're allowed to be wrong. That's the nature of being a Townie without information. I don't know why but I feel Pleo's vote on Captain Pinkie is ba smudge of a sort. There are a lot of players in this game and I'm having trouble keeping people straight if I don't already know them. Why go after him when other people aren't posting at all? It's not a smudge when a player gives a reason to vote for someone and then follows through with a vote. I explained why I chose CaptPink: because he didn't vote, didn't participate much, and then posted a drive-by comment ToDay. In this game, we're only allowed to vote for one player at a time. If I could, I'd be voting for all of YesterDay's non-voters. Vote PolluxOf course he doesn't want to lynch me now because the cloud of smoke he's trying to blow up everyone's asses goes poof as soon as I'm dead. You think I can end the world on Day 3? You think I'm a liar? You should be voting for me. Is there a specific reason you're voting for Pollux?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 11:06:39 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 27, 2009 11:06:39 GMT -5
I voted for Jaade Day 1, and don't see much of a reason to change that. I know I haven't participated much toDay, but I expect to post more in the coming Day(s). I have no idea what to expect from Jaade.
Vote: Jaade
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 11:18:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 11:18:57 GMT -5
There are three specific reasons in the post you quote, Pleo.
If he truly believes what he is trying to advance, that I'm a liar and that I'm trying to get you all to kill me on Day 3 so that I can blow up the world, the most pro-town thing to do would be getting rid of me now, before Day 3. If he's right about me (which he's not, but for the sake of argument...) getting rid of me now subverts whatever may or may not happen in NAF's "vision" (whatever it is), it takes a (prolific, participatory) suspected liar out of the game and prevents that suspected liar from manipulating anyone, and if he's wrong (which he is, but for the sake of argument...) the worst thing that happens is a Vanilla Townie dies and some wifom is taken off the table.
What he's proposing, keeping me alive and either ignoring me or seeing a lie in everything that I say, is not the most pro-town approach to the scenario he's laid out.
However, if he's scum, his approach to the scenario that he's laid out is exactly what the scum would want to do with me. They don't want to waste a kill on a vanilla, and they don't want me dead too soon because my death would clear a lot of things up that are currently muddying the waters. Keeping me alive but doubted and in strategic exile is the best thing that scum could hope happens to me.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 11:25:39 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 27, 2009 11:25:39 GMT -5
I don't know where I want to vote yet. On the one hand we have Pollux using a classic "let's break down the game and talk without saying anything" move, which is suspicious but at the moment genuinly helpful (to me) in terms of getting the ideas we have had so far in this game organized. I am not a big fan of him just throwing the handshake out as if it were totally meaningless, I think that's uncecessarily reductive and lacking in nuance, but whatever some people live in a black and white world.
On the other hand Ed is pinging me like crazy and beyond the case that hockeyguy presented (that no one really seems to care that much about any more) he seems to have slipped away from suspicion and I have nothing but my gut to go on.
Then we have lurkers galore. I have to imagine that at least half the scum are in this camp just because there are so damn many of them.
I am close to a vote, but I don't have one yet. Sorry for it coming down so close to the wire, but having the Day end right after a weekend kinda sucks for me.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 27, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
Oh, hey, I just looked at the clock, I have until tomorrow to vote still. Well that's a bit more like it. I take back my bad feelings.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 11:42:50 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 27, 2009 11:42:50 GMT -5
If he truly believes what he is trying to advance, that I'm a liar and that I'm trying to get you all to kill me on Day 3 so that I can blow up the world, the most pro-town thing to do would be getting rid of me now, before Day 3. I must have missed where he accused you of being the bomber. Can you quote where he did? All I see is him expressing skepticism about your vanilla claim. Which considering how eager you've been to point out skepticism in other potential information we have, it seems strange you'd react so strongly to him doing the same.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:05:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:05:06 GMT -5
Hockeyguy, I'm a SHE. I haven't made up anything in THIS game to justify a vote. I'm pissed at statements I made in another game being dragged into this one though. That seems like metagaming to the point of unfairness to me. Ed, if I were the mod I would have you subbed out for that. (Note to Hawkeye: that's not a comment at you, it's a line I've been dying to throw back at Ed for months now.) I have no problem bringing statements made in another game into this game. You don't either. Or, maybe you would like me to go look back in other games and find evidence of you doing exactly that? I can understand people not liking the metagamey aspect of looking at your play in other games, but really, you shouldn't call me on it when you do it yourself. kthxbai.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:09:48 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:09:48 GMT -5
On the other hand Ed is pinging me like crazy and beyond the case that hockeyguy presented (that no one really seems to care that much about any more) he seems to have slipped away from suspicion and I have nothing but my gut to go on. Yes, the case that I made a mistake and therefore must have been skimming? Or were you referring to the part of the case where I stated something was possible and he accused me of declaring it to be true? Or perhaps it was the way I questio0ns cookies for claiming an alignment without actually mentioning the alignment? Maybe I slipped away from suspicion because there really wasn't anything there.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:10:31 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:10:31 GMT -5
Wait, I take that back, there was the time I didn't get on line until evening and everyone was worried that I wasn't posting....
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:12:43 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 27, 2009 12:12:43 GMT -5
Sorry, once again that was an incomplete thought, Ed...I have a problem with statements made in another ONGOING game being dragged into this game, which I think is clear from my original post on the matter.
AFAIK I have never, ever done that but your memory is certainly better and longer than mine so perhaps you'll find an instance.
Hawkeye, if possible I'd like to be subbed out please.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:13:13 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:13:13 GMT -5
Hockeyguy, I'm a SHE. I haven't made up anything in THIS game to justify a vote. I'm pissed at statements I made in another game being dragged into this one though. That seems like metagaming to the point of unfairness to me. Ed, if I were the mod I would have you subbed out for that. (Note to Hawkeye: that's not a comment at you, it's a line I've been dying to throw back at Ed for months now.) BY the way, I'm glad you cleared uop, that while you'll make up reasons to justify a vote, you haven't done so in this game. It makes me feel so much better knowing that this time, you're being honest.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:25:13 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 27, 2009 12:25:13 GMT -5
OK:
Cookies: I am actually very suspicious of your role pm. What you were saying doesn't actually make terribly much sense. I'm not saying you're lying, (and I don't think Pollux is either) I'm saying that it's possible that you're lying. Speaking as a former mod, a vanilla pm is exponentially harder to mess up than a non-vanilla pm.
Another note would be that even if you're lying, that doesn't necessarily make you a rebel.
Archangel: First, please don't go. I found it very clear that you were talking about your motivations in the other game rather than this one. My interpretation of your motivations is that when you have no drive for any particular person, lynch the lurker is better than nothing, however when you have nothing but a gut feeling, sometimes you have to go with your gut.
The handshaking: Even though I'm one of the handshakers, I have to say, I don't put much stock in it. I almost didn't do it at all and the handshakers are at the same null state of suspicion at which I start every player.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:29:36 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jul 27, 2009 12:29:36 GMT -5
Vote Count
Jaade*: 3 (Julie, Pleo, Pumpjack) Special Ed: 1 (KidV) Julie: 1 (Archangel) BillMc 1 (Texcat) Pollux: 1 (Cookies) Archangel: 1 (Peeker)
Please do not refer to ongoing games. Also, there will be no substitutions in this game. Any player who needs to sub-out will be mod-killed.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:39:26 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 27, 2009 12:39:26 GMT -5
If he truly believes what he is trying to advance, that I'm a liar and that I'm trying to get you all to kill me on Day 3 so that I can blow up the world, the most pro-town thing to do would be getting rid of me now, before Day 3. I must have missed where he accused you of being the bomber. Can you quote where he did? All I see is him expressing skepticism about your vanilla claim. Which considering how eager you've been to point out skepticism in other potential information we have, it seems strange you'd react so strongly to him doing the same. I've taken my reasoning further than just saying "Pollux is being skeptical of me, lynch him".
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:40:19 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 27, 2009 12:40:19 GMT -5
Hockeyguy, I'm a SHE. I haven't made up anything in THIS game to justify a vote. I'm pissed at statements I made in another game being dragged into this one though. That seems like metagaming to the point of unfairness to me. Ed, if I were the mod I would have you subbed out for that. (Note to Hawkeye: that's not a comment at you, it's a line I've been dying to throw back at Ed for months now.) never played with you so can't vouch for the veracity of what you bespeak. what you said was "... in general ...." i took that to mean, uh, in general.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:46:15 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 27, 2009 12:46:15 GMT -5
Peeker, my argument isn't with you, it's with Ed trying to smudge me based on something I said in another ongoing game. (And if y'all are wondering why I'm not voting Ed it's because he ALWAYS smudges me in every game, whether he's town or not, so it's a null-tell.)
I will stay since the alternative is mod-killing. And I won't say anything more on the subject since it all goes back to another ongoing game and Hawkeye has spoken on the subject.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:50:05 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:50:05 GMT -5
AFAIK I have never, ever done that but your memory is certainly better and longer than mine so perhaps you'll find an instance. I don't need a long memory. In the most recently completed game, The Princess Bride, you brought up other games in defense of yourself. You stated that you never claimed Vanilla when Scum. (And, heaven forbid, you actually referenced a current game in your defense!) Day 8, post 16, if you're curious
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 27, 2009 12:52:15 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2009 12:52:15 GMT -5
Peeker, my argument isn't with you, it's with Ed trying to smudge me based on something I said in another ongoing game. (And if y'all are wondering why I'm not voting Ed it's because he ALWAYS smudges me in every game, whether he's town or not, so it's a null-tell.) I will stay since the alternative is mod-killing. And I won't say anything more on the subject since it all goes back to another ongoing game and Hawkeye has spoken on the subject. pointing out your inconsistencies is not a smidge. It's something I like to call pointing out your inconsistencies.
|
|