|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 15:11:11 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 11, 2009 15:11:11 GMT -5
It was a quiet Day, little said and little done.
A few accusations were thrown here and there by some, others were nowhere to be seen.
In the end those who spoke settled on hockeyguy
Once again, the chosen was taken forth and placed into another stasis booth. Once again, the machine started its work and the group waited for the result.
Brain pattern held.... Name: Mitchell Passenger Status: Passenger Passenger Role: Security Guard Passenger Ability: Roleblocker
hockeyguy has been placed into stasis
Night 2 begins now. It will end on Friday 13th November at 20:00 GMT
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 15:52:44 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 15:52:44 GMT -5
Well, that's not much help . Only thing I get from that (many) vanilla tend to be uncommon with a town role blocker (and a possible scum one) and that scum are more likely to have powers besides the kill. - - - - - Vote count Day One: Chucara (5): Redskeezix, Sinjin, nphase, Natlaw, Dirx pedescribe (4): Pleonast, Special Ed*, Sister Coyote, MHaye BillMc (3): Pedescribe, BillMc (forced), Kat! nphase (3): Storyteller*, shaggy, Chucara Natlaw (1): Idle Thoughts sinjin (1): peekercpa Guy Incognito (1): Guy Incognito No vote (2): hockeyguy, Boozahol Squid PI *) moved vote to Chucara at last minute (Story was too late) to prevent a last minute tie. Vote Count Day Two: hockeyguy (7): peekercpa, Kat!, Pleonast, Nanook, dirx, redskeezix, Natlaw Boozahol (1): BillMc pedescribe (2): special ed nphase (1): pedescribe, MHaye Natlaw (1): shaggy MHaye (1): nphase peekercpa (1): sinjin No vote (3): hockeyguy, Boozahol, storyteller Claims: BillMc: Vigilante - role reveal on kill - N1: killed Guy (Survivor) pedescribe: Tracker - N1: blocked, tried to track SC Natlaw: Killed Role Investigator Kat!: Don't lynch Boozahol Dead: Chucara - Passenger White hat - Vote Switcher - D1: switched BillMc's vote from Chucara to BillMc Guy Incognito - possible Survivor Sister Coyote - claimed Alien (PFK/mad bomber?) Hunter hockeyguy - Security Guard - Roleblocker
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 15:53:17 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 15:53:17 GMT -5
It was your second comment in response to him; I quoted it in the post where I accused you. I couldn't parse the first comment, sorry. In the second one, you questioned Idle regarding his claim of confusion, then explicitly said something like "it doesn't match". That reads to me as if you did not believe him when he said he was just confused about the rules. Later on, you refer back to your initial vote rationale as being because he was confused about the rules. (I also quoted that in the accusation post, I think.) Yes, I was questioning whether or not he was confusing or not about the voting. But where did I claim his confusion was (now) the reason for my original vote like you say? I don't see it.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 16:06:10 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 16:06:10 GMT -5
Right here:
"both statements read ... that [Idle] seemed confused about the ... rules" -- yet originally (in your second comment directed at him), you said that that idea didn't match up.
At some point after that I think you also said that your vote wasn't on Idle for being confused anymore, but rather because of the way he was defending himself. I'll try to find it if you ask me to.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 16:21:10 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 11, 2009 16:21:10 GMT -5
Hey everyone, Sorry for not being here at the end. I have for this week and next been put on the grave yard shift and so I work all night and try and get some sleep during the day...So also sorry if I am even more incoherant in posting then normal.
Anyways kinda sucky that we lost our roleblocker. Wonder if pede was really blocked you think it was hockeyguy ? Not sure but am wondering out curiosity.
Anyways, to comment on the end of the day.
Thanks Natlaw for explaning a few things and stuff, while it is a mild ping, I am alot less suspicious. It does make alot more sense when you fully explain more why you waited and everything. If I had been on I probably would have down graded from the vote to a mild raise an eye brow. As I said still looked initially kinda bad but apon reading but the explanation by you, makes a bit more sense now.
So Pede is claiming he tried to track the person that ended up dead last night but as previously stated could not. There is bad luck for yeah. I can some what understand the reluctance, after all what are the odds of that. Though I do agree with if not the target, why not at least tracker part earlier? I mean we already knew it was some kind of a investigative role. But hey, as I said I kinda understand.
I do agree as well, Kinda odd for the kat comment but I do think I know where she is going with it…could be and probably way off but I have a guess. So I am inclined not to push it yet.
Oh well, there is my 2 cents worth for what I missed at the end of the day.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 19:45:07 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 19:45:07 GMT -5
Now, this is what I'm thinking right now, putting-out-information-wise. A Kat kill (either overnight or toMorrow) will pretty much confirm Boozy. Not necessarily 100%, but definitely enough for him to avoid any further lynching talk. Of course, you'd just end up with a confirmed-Town non-participant, unless he comes back and actually participates. On the other hand, if Boozy gets offed, it'd only sorta-confirm me, because I could (putting myself in the mindset of the majority of Town) just as easily be either scum going out on a limb on Boozy's alignment (after all, he's much more likely to be Town than third party, numberswise) or scum with investigatory results (either my own, or another scum's). Kinda sucks for me a bit.
At this point, I'm thinking I'd like to let the scum stew a little bit but, as I will definitely not be on just before Dawn (sorry, I'll be at work, and prefer not to risk getting in trouble again), I will fess up about halfway through (would that make it Midnight?) with all the details. Or, most of them, anyway.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 20:36:12 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 11, 2009 20:36:12 GMT -5
hey steve/sinjin i thought i made it clear that i was voting for you for just parroting other folks' opinion. you got all worked up about it and i changed to ped since he seemed like he was begging to claim.
and i have no fracking clue about your observation about bullshitting off a discussion. i was merely acting on a previously espoused game position. does consistency bother you?
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 20:56:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 11, 2009 20:56:53 GMT -5
neta: oh and i changed it back since you came back with a real clif observation.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 21:51:29 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 11, 2009 21:51:29 GMT -5
hey steve/sinjin i thought i made it clear that i was voting for you for just parroting other folks' opinion. you got all worked up about it and i changed to ped since he seemed like he was begging to claim. and i have no fracking clue about your observation about bullshitting off a discussion. i was merely acting on a previously espoused game position. does consistency bother you? The first paragraph of your quote does not reflect your actual reasons for voting for me on Day 1. Your first vote for me: You voted me for waffling, I protested that I had never waffled and you posted this: You then came back with this: I have no idea what you mean in your second paragarph or your second quote above, when come back bring English. kthnxby
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 22:07:15 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 11, 2009 22:07:15 GMT -5
yes, i tossed you in with the wafflers. that was my bad. i should have, and i think i made it clear, that characterization was inaccurate. you were not a waffler, you were a parrot. lots of times when folks have no original thoughts and are merely "me tooing" it i ascribe more to their posts than they should have been given credit for. you were only a waffler in the sense that you were going whichever way the wind was blowing from someone else. i think i made it clear that was not the case and that you were merely being a parrot. hence, the "no original thought".
help?
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 11, 2009 22:39:11 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 11, 2009 22:39:11 GMT -5
yes, i tossed you in with the wafflers. that was my bad. i should have, and i think i made it clear, that characterization was inaccurate. you were not a waffler, you were a parrot. lots of times when folks have no original thoughts and are merely "me tooing" it i ascribe more to their posts than they should have been given credit for. you were only a waffler in the sense that you were going whichever way the wind was blowing from someone else. i think i made it clear that was not the case and that you were merely being a parrot. hence, the "no original thought". help? It's incredibly easy to say that on day one. Not much is known on Day one. What exactly were the original points that you yourself made?
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 8:46:00 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 8:46:00 GMT -5
Shit. Sorry, y'all, for my vanishing act. I've been having some connectivity problems at home, and was working from home Tuesday and yesterday.
How the hell have we lynched two power roles in two Days? Off to find out.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 9:57:21 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 9:57:21 GMT -5
OK. Time to get serious. Day One – The Passion of Chucara
So the game starts with about a page or so of crosstalk, mostly involving various readings of the voting rules, misunderstandings of same, and early accusations on the basis of same. Not much of value in terms of establishing alignment here.
At #43, Special Ed gets us started in earnest by voting for roughly half the population in one post. His intention appears to be tongue-in-cheek, and he settles on a vote for himself. Idle and Natlaw have a series of exchanges regarding the former’s vote for Pleonast; Idle thinks Natlaw is pushing on the whole thing too hard and votes for Nat.
Now pedescribe votes for Pleonast, on the grounds that, near as I can parse it, Pleo is doing something pro-Town. This is a weird vote, just for the record.
At #70, Pleo votes pedescribe. This post has not gotten sufficient attention. Everybody go read it. It might be the most coherent argument underlying a vote that we’ve yet seen in this game, which given that it’s on page three of Day One is not a good sign of our work so far.
Now it gets interesting:
-------------------------------- Chucara votes Ed at #73, citing Ed’s evident desire to spread around suspicion with his long post. He throws in an obviously-afterthought “and for being annoyed with all the voting,” but this is clearly a joke. Ed responds immediately thereafter, describing his long voting post as “obviously fluffy.” I don’t know that I agree with this; there are a couple of arguments in Ed’s post that look like the beginnings of something more concrete. But never mind that for now.
First vote for Chucara is at #75, by Sister Coyote. She cites his attempts to “stifle discussion.” Don’t really see that as an accurate characterization, frankly. Eventually, Chucara encourages everyone to move on from this topic, because it’s been exhausted. To this, Natlaw ultimately responds (#87):
Emphasis mine. OK, at #90 Chucara clarifies some of his comments, thusly:
This is actually a very clear statement, and I understand it perfectly. I’ve been in this situation, where I’ve voted for someone because I found them suspicious, they’ve explained, I’ve found the explanation wanting, and… well… there it is. You could go back and forth all Day on it, but we’ve reached an impasse and further discussion of the issue on the part of the two principals will consist mostly of us repeating the same points over and over and over (cf, any argument between Blaster Master and me in any of the early games). This can have a negative effect on the game. Makes sense. Chucara also adds:
At #95, redskeezix votes for Chucara, and I have read this post five consecutive times and I still don’t understand why. One sentence in the voting post is this:
This is, by the way, a mischaracterization of Chucara’s vote for Ed. Not a dramatic mischaracterization, but then it doesn’t have to be, does it. The following sums up Chucara’s motives:
I think this is VERY straightforward and simple. Ed threw a bunch of (putatively “fluffy”) stuff against a wall, but declined to say that any of it was suspicious or engage with it. Thus, if some other player picked up on it and the train started rolling, Ed could choose to join or abstain from the bandwagon with deniability either way. This isn’t probative or even particularly compelling, but it’s not the bizarre and arcane reasoning that some are trying to paint it as.
At #108, BillMc makes a bizarre misreading of the “I’m not the boss of mafia” comment and uses it to justify the third (whee!) vote for Chucara. Chucara responds with a counter-vote and a soft claim. Everyone goes nuts over the soft claim – “way too early, blah blah blah” – but I don’t really understand that, either. When you have three votes on Day One, no one is talking about anything else, and barring someone else making a huge whopper of a mistake, you know what? You’re probably going to have to claim eventually. Why not do it early, when it can actually allow for some discussion?
nphase, at #123:
“…has Chucara gotten any votes since that comment?” I think this is a very weird question – like someone who was anticipating a rush of votes and didn’t see one. It sounds almost disappointed. Why should Chucara have gotten a bunch of votes, nphase? Clearly you think he should have, or you wouldn’t point out the fact that he hasn’t. So if you think he should have gotten votes… why haven’t you voted for him? Special Ed, who ALSO has not voted for Chucara, checks this same comment. At #127, Natlaw agrees with my take on this.
Anyway, Special Ed votes pedescribe for seeming inconsistency at #153, then encourages Chucara to claim.
pedescribe at #158 (who has not, and does not, vote for Chucara in this sequence):
Terrible case. Terrible argument. Chucara hasn’t talked about other targets because mostly, everyone has talked about HIM. He also never claimed his vote for Ed was for a “martyr-worthy goal.” For Pete’s sake, is throwing out an early vote on Day One just to prime the pump really such an unusual occurrence that pedescribe is trying to paint it as a scum tell? The first five or six votes on any Day One will be for less-than-ironclad reasons, as Chucara’s certainly was. The case looks “solid?” Come on.
THEN, at #161, pedescribe makes a vague argument about Chucara’s “tone,” and THEN in the very next post he criticizes BillMc for… wait for it… making a vague argument about Chucara’s tone! He says, “yes, I am aware that that was what I was doing. That's why I stopped doing it.” And by, “I’ve stopped doing it,” he evidently means “I’ve stopped since my very last post.”
And suddenly, at #165, pedescribe finds them BOTH (BillMc and Chucara) “highly suspicious.” He votes for Bill “to keep him in the running.” Wait – “highly suspicious?” Really? Really?
sinjin at #166 (voting for Chucara):
The thing is, I don’t see how the story has changed at all. He voted for Ed for a weak reason to stimulate discussion. Because the fallout of that vote took up most of the Day so far, he hasn’t found a reason to vote anyone else, so the weak reason for Ed makes Ed the most scummy so far. What has changed with the wind?
Chucara switches BillMc’s vote to BillMc.
At #185, dirx agrees with my comments on the likelihood of Chucara’s role being Town, and disagrees with BillMc’s reading of Chucara’s “boss of Mafia” statement.
Sister Coyote doesn’t like pedescribe’s “defense of the soft claim,” (ped objects to this wording) and votes pedescribe at #187. At #196, Natlaw says:
Shaggy votes BillMc. MHaye agrees with my argument above regarding pedescribe’s “martyr” remarks.
----------END OF PAGE SEVEN OF DAY ONE; HERE I TAKE A BRIEF BREAK-----------
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 10:38:58 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 10:38:58 GMT -5
Picking up at the top of Day One, page 8.
peeker at #213, re pedescribe:
I agree. At this moment, post #213, my suspicions lie with pedescribe, skeezix, and nphase. The last of these votes Chucara at #231, after saying it is “unlikely” that his role is a Scum role. She has since defended this remark, so I will clarify my objection to it: if the role is unlikely to be Scum, then so is the player. On Day One, this should be sufficient evidence to at least look at someone else – to question your assumptions, at minimum. nphase does not do this; she just acknowledges that the role is probably Town then votes for it anyway. La dee da.
Bill claims Vigilante. The information he provides suggests that there will be no or limited reveals at death, an anti-Town mechanism making it even less likely that the vote switcher role would be placed in the hands of Scum.
Chucara votes nphase. Natlaw thinks we shouldn’t lynch either Chuc or BillMc – a sensible viewpoint :-) – then backs it up by voting pedescribe. shaggy joins me in voting nphase.
NOW: at #283, pedescribe offers this:
Then, at #296, this:
There is some static given to pedescribe for the soft-claim, but not, interestingly, nearly as much as Chucara received for his own – particularly given that Chucara eventually ponied up. Where is nphase, who noted the way that Chucara’s claim surely “made the Scum’s ears perk up,”
dirx votes Chucara at #313. When last we saw dirx (#185), he was agreeing with me that Chucara was unlikely to be Scum. What changed his mind? This:
When you think about it, this isn’t really an argument of any kind, is it?
Natlaw votes Chucara at #315, after being essentially pro-Chucara all Day, based on the fact that Chucara’s power could be used in a Scummy way. He says, “I don't see a reason for a town role to hide a vote switch.” I suppose he means, “other than hiding the power from the Scum, who would know about it if Chucara had to do it openly.” This is a TERRIBLE vote for a TERRIBLE reason, and it’s basically the killer vote in a lot of ways.
From there, there’s really not much happening. Chucara flails, no one really pushes pedescribe at all, and before you know it, Chucara is dead.
--------------------------------- I end my read of Day One with the following suspicions:
1. Natlaw 2. nphase 3. redskeezix 4. pedescribe 5. dirx
Day Two next.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 11:28:05 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 11:28:05 GMT -5
DAY TWO
Pleonast starts off by restating his largely ignored case against pedescribe and reinstating his vote for same. pedescribe responds with:
Because a “scummy tone” is vague and insubstantial; it means whatever you want it to mean. It can’t be quantified or serve as the basis for discussion. Somebody pointed out why that was a problem back on Day One – who was that guy, the guy who said this:
---
A bunch of discussion ensues regarding the events of Night One, which is always sort of fruitless and no exception here.
pedescribe makes a really nice summary of the case against nphase at #27, and votes for her. His case, and her responses to it and discussion thereof, is the bulk of Day Two, Page 2; she then votes for Natlaw at #53.
Then things went silent for a while.
Pleonast comes back at #68 with another reiteration of his points against pedescribe, noting when he does that ped isn’t really responding. Pleo is being really single-minded in his pursuit of pedescribe, a fact that I will consider a Town tell if pedescribe turns out to be Town and a null tell if pedescribe is Scum.
peeker has a question for me at #69:
You just answered your own question. Lynches provide information. A no-lynch yesterday would have meant spending toDay arguing about Chucara again, very possibly ending in his death (or BillMc might have chosen to kill him, and we wouldn’t have gotten a dead third-party). As I said at the time, at least we know for sure, no foolin, that Chucara was Town and can discuss accordingly.
At #77, peeker votes for hockeyguy, I guess for lurking? At #78, he asks me:
I’d ask in return: why wouldn’t I be?
---
Natlaw challenges pedescribe with a vote and a request for a full claim, then soft-claims investigator himself oh my god I’m going insane now, right? shaggy votes natlaw. Special Ed votes pedescribe at #101, and is funny :-).
By the way, I’m actually reading and writing this in real-time, and it’s fascinating, like reading a good novel. At this point I would have bet cash money that either pedescribe, natlaw, or at least nphase would have been lynched. How did none of these things happen? OK, let’s find out.
ped FINALLY claims Tracker and answers Pleonast’s charges against him.
Natlaw claims, basically, Coroner, and switches his vote over to Boozahol. Suddenly we’re into lynch-the-lurker. Skeezix and nphase happily join the wagon. MHaye votes nphase. Kat! implies Boozy is a Mason (?). Pleo switches to hockeyguy. nphase switches over to MHaye. And then it’s just sort of downhill and BANG, dead roleblocker.
---
So, here’s the thing: I don’t get what happened here. At the moment when it became clear that neither pedescribe nor Natlaw were going to be lynched – and let the record show that I’m still not totally sure why Natlaw’s claim had any effect on people wanting/not wanting to lynch pedescribe – somehow everyone went to lynch-the-lurker.
Why not nphase? For the second Day in a row, she was a viable alternative (ie, had gotten a few votes, had arguments against her) to claimed Town power roles. At minimum, she was around to claim, and hockeyguy was not. If a completely content-free lynch was inevitable, why not move to a player who has at least drawn some suspicion and generated some discussion – or at least put some pressure on her?
It makes sense, though, if nphase is Scum. Natlaw and pedescribe find their way to a place where neither is likely to die. The only other player with serious votes is nphase. Scum either start or participate in a distracting, inevitably crowd-pleasing move toward lynching a lurker, and bag themselves a Town power role in the bargain.
My vote toMorrow Morning will definitely be for nphase.
One more post to come.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 11:28:12 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 12, 2009 11:28:12 GMT -5
Well, hockey, next time you're a power role, will you please participate more, or at least let us know you won't be able to for a while? Just let me know by the time I get back if you want me to do it right away (I will if I get enough requests), after Dusk, or right before Dawn. After Dawn is probably not a good idea. You might as well give us enough to confirm Squid (and yourself, too) now, since you've already given enough to make yourselves targets. That does not make it a valid strategy. Seriously. My own criterion (see Last Bastion for an example) is that if I think all active players are on balance likely Town, it's time to lynch the lurker. I disagree. The proof is in the pudding--it worked. That doesn't mean that we always find scum by lynching a lurker, but it does mean that some number of non-town players will take that tactic. Waiting until we're confident that the remaining active players are town is not a viable strategy. That lets scum know they can get a free ride to the end game by shutting up. We want scum to be active and posting, so that they risk mistakes and put themselves on record. And we want townies to not lurk either, so we can get their town perspective--useful for finding scum presently and after they've been confirmed. A townie who's posted little gives us little to go on when they're lynched or killed. So we need to give some incentive to lazy townies to participate actively, too. At #70, Pleo votes pedescribe. This post has not gotten sufficient attention. Everybody go read it. It might be the most coherent argument underlying a vote that we’ve yet seen in this game, which given that it’s on page three of Day One is not a good sign of our work so far. Thank you! I'm getting frustrated that not many others are picking up on ped's scumminess.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 11:38:39 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 11:38:39 GMT -5
OK, last post for a while, I promise. Gotta go catch up on Heroes.
I think it might be a time to look a bit at the arrangement of the game as it seems to be shaping up. We started with only 20 players. We must assume absolutely no fewer than three Scum, but more likely four, leaving 16 non-Scum. Assuming for the moment that all claims made so far are true, we also have two third-party players at a minimum (Guy and the Alien).
That would leave 14 Town, including so far
1 Tracker 1 Coroner 1 Politician at least 2 Masons 1 Vigilante 1 Alien Hunter 1 Role Blocker
Y'all, that's eight power roles out of (probably) 14 Town roles. So far. And not a mention of an alignment Cop or Doctor. If we've been given neither of those things - not even a variation on either - this is going to be a tough row to hoe, especially without death reveals of alignment.
It seems entirely likely to me that someone among the claimants is lying. We know Chucara and hockeyguy were real, and I suppose it's most likely that Kat and Boozy really are Masons of some stripe (or taking a pretty ballsy risk). BillMc seems likely to be telling the truth based on what we've seen so far, and frankly we absolutely need a role like Natlaw's. If he's lying, the real Coroner should counter, but none has and I suspect none will - I think he's telling the truth. We don't know yet about Sister Coyote. But if she was telling the truth, that leaves only pedescribe.
If there is an Alignment Cop, if there is a Doctor, if there are more than two Masons... these things, plus confirmation of BillMc's and Sister Coyote's roles, if we can get it, will strongly argue in favor of pedescribe being a liar based on balance alone.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 11:52:02 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 12, 2009 11:52:02 GMT -5
I disagree. The proof is in the pudding--it worked. That doesn't mean that we always find scum by lynching a lurker, but it does mean that some number of non-town players will take that tactic. Did it? We've just lynched a Town power role by following that recipe. It's a random lynch; you can expect to lynch non-Town roles with approximately the frequency non-Town roles appear in the game as a whole. That means the majority of the time, lynching a lurker is lynching a Townsperson. At what cost? This lynch was terrible. We've handed a power role to the Pirates on a platter. It also disregarded the Moderator's word that he is monitoring participation and will act if necessary.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 12:41:25 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 12, 2009 12:41:25 GMT -5
I disagree. The proof is in the pudding--it worked. That doesn't mean that we always find scum by lynching a lurker, but it does mean that some number of non-town players will take that tactic. Did it? We've just lynched a Town power role by following that recipe. It's a random lynch; you can expect to lynch non-Town roles with approximately the frequency non-Town roles appear in the game as a whole. That means the majority of the time, lynching a lurker is lynching a Townsperson. No, it wasn't random. Scum have an incentive to participate less, town have an incentive to participate more. That means that those less active are biased towards being scum. No tactic that we take is guaranteed be beneficial in every instance. And this tactic is easy enough for townies to avoid being caught by--play your part in helping us and participate. There's no excuse to fail to participate and to fail to tell us of absence. hockeyguy failed us twice, by not participating and then by letting himself be lynched for not participating. Why not nphase? For the second Day in a row, she was a viable alternative (ie, had gotten a few votes, had arguments against her) to claimed Town power roles. At minimum, she was around to claim, and hockeyguy was not. If a completely content-free lynch was inevitable, why not move to a player who has at least drawn some suspicion and generated some discussion – or at least put some pressure on her? Personally, I'm not as suspicious about nphase because of the way pedescribe is going after her. That is bad logic, though; I need to look more carefully at nphase.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:23:32 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 12, 2009 13:23:32 GMT -5
frankly we absolutely need a role like Natlaw's. If he's lying, the real Coroner should counter, but none has and I suspect none will - I think he's telling the truth. Why are you sure that we must have a coroner? Pollux's BioShock game had delayed flip plus a scum obscurer and no coroner. From the Day 2 colour, it seems to hint that it may be a delayed card flip: The details of the two victims were fed into the ship's computer and hopes that some analysis could be done on their remains. It is plausible that the scum get the results of who they killed, thus Natlaw could be scum and false claiming. If he is scum, he can bolster his claim by confirming what I said about Guy, or he could disagree and get me lynched - and my role/information would not be confirmed one way or the other
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:23:40 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 13:23:40 GMT -5
I think I'm just going to kind of offer this without much comment.
Vote status with just under 24 hours left in the Day: pedescribe (1): Pleonast nphase (1): pedescribe natlaw (1): nphase hockeyguy (1): peeker
(Peeker's vote was for lurking, the other three based on behavior.)
Vote status with 5.5 hours left. (At this point Pleonast and BillMc had just voted Boozy explicitly for lurking.)
pedescribe (1): special ed Boozahol (4): nphase, Natlaw, Pleonast, BillMc nphase (1): pedescribe Natlaw (1): shaggy hockeyguy (1): peekercpa
(Other vote changes in the meantime: me --> Boozy as placeholder after Natlaw's claim; Shaggy --> Natlaw; Natlaw --> pedescribe to encourage full claim, then --> Boozy as placeholder)
Still not voting, with 5.5 hours left in the Day: Boozy, Nanook, MHaye (came in with an extended case against me not too long afterward), Hockeyguy of course, Sinjin, Dirx, storyteller, RedSkeezix, Kat
There's your proximate cause for a lurker lynch. Too much of Town wasn't even trying.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:25:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 13:25:51 GMT -5
No, it wasn't random. Scum have an incentive to participate less, town have an incentive to participate more. That means that those less active are biased towards being scum. But lynch-the-lurker rarely focuses on the "less active," as you say here. It usually focuses on the completely inactive, which is different. It may be true that the player who participates as little as possible, posting now and then but maintaining a very low post count and contributing little, is more likely to be Scum than Town. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the player who does not participate at all is doing so for out-of-game reasons. I myself vanished from both games I am currently playing because I was working from home for two days and my Internet connection got hinky. This isn't a tell for anything other than that Comcast New Jersey sucks. So when we lynch the guy/gal who has just completely vanished, we are truly lynching at random - and we're more likely to hit Town than Scum. In fact, we're more likely to hit a Town power role that will never have a chance to claim than Scum. I'd actually be in favor of lynch-the-lurker under some circumstances, if it meant lynching the players who are actually here, reading and posting, but at a very low rate or with minimal content, because I do agree that those players are more likely to be Scum. But when it comes to lynching someone who is just not here - well, I think it's anti-Town. We should leave players who disappear to the moderator's discretion. 1. Lack of Internet connection 2. Real-life personal or medical emergency 3. Baby is born 4. Website is unexpectedly blocked at work That's four excuses, and I spent exactly two minutes thinking about them.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:32:50 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 13:32:50 GMT -5
Why are you sure that we must have a coroner? Pollux's BioShock game had delayed flip plus a scum obscurer and no coroner. Why does everyone keep doing this? I never said I was sure of anything. Given what we have seen so far, I believe it is likely that we have a Coroner. Making best guesses based on the available evidence is what this game is about. Anything is possible. In the same way, while I was not "sure" Chucara's role was Town, I thought it was very likely based on the information we have so far. Sit around and wait for certainty and nothing will ever happen; you have to take what you know and try to puzzle out what is most likely to be true. Perhaps. Even a delayed card-flip is a strongly anti-Town mechanism with no Coroner. Possible, but if it's so, we must have some kick-ass power roles to make up for the imbalance, and so far, none of the claimed power roles have been particularly kick-ass. And I'll believe in the delayed card-flip when I see it, because so far, I haven't. This is possible. I think it's unlikely, and I'm going to work on the basis of that belief until something happens to alter it. If he comes in toMorrow and says that you're lying, then we'll hash it out then. That's not actually true. If we lynch you, we receive confirmation of your role and alignment, just as we have with hockeyguy and Chucara. So if Natlaw tries that approach, he'll be dead the next Day at best.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:41:18 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 13:41:18 GMT -5
As an aside regarding Storyteller's final argument against me:
I used that same exact argument in my last completed game, Ed's Disney Mafia, regarding Bear Nenno's non-bandwagon on Day Three. I was wrong. In retrospect, I think it's a poor argument. There are too many other reasons why Scum might not jump on a tempting bandwagon. To name them:
-- one or more of the people already putting pressure on is Scum (and they've already committed all they can to the cause) -- one or more of the rivals for the vote lead at the time is Scum (and they don't want to get caught out later as protecting that person) -- Scum sees a fatal flaw somewhere in the bandwagon and don't want to reap the repercussions once the flip happens -- everyone in danger is Town, and Scum just figures they'll sit back and let things happen -- Scum just plain aren't paying attention (or half of them are inactive)
In the case I'm thinking of, it was a combination of the first option and the last: of four living Scum, two were inactive, and a third was the second vote on the player in question. Not much they could do at that point to push things any further, and Town as a whole wasn't buying it.
Considering my already-voiced suspicions about both Pedescribe and Merestil Haye, and the slight caution I'm still carrying about Natlaw, anyone who describes the above as a smudge on anyone gets a wallop upside the head.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:48:51 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 13:48:51 GMT -5
Having just come off a game where four of five Scum players went completely inactive for days at a time (two were replaced by subs, one asked for a sub but was too late, the last showed up once every other Day at most, always with RL excuses), I will argue against your contention that the wholly inactive are more likely Town than Scum, Storyteller. I think the time commitment necessary to play Scum at all well can lead a lot of borderline players to just drop out and hope they get replaced (or killed off somehow, without otherwise damaging their team). It's obviously not always true, but that game really changed my thinking on the subject.
Come to think of it, one player modkilled in the Giraffeboards game I played before that one was also Scum.
I do think MHaye's point about the mod in this game saying they'd deal with inactive players has merit, but the best solution is for people to get things going a lot earlier than happened yesterDay.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:54:48 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 12, 2009 13:54:48 GMT -5
Natlaw votes Chucara at #315, after being essentially pro-Chucara all Day, based on the fact that Chucara’s power could be used in a Scummy way. He says, “I don't see a reason for a town role to hide a vote switch.” I suppose he means, “other than hiding the power from the Scum, who would know about it if Chucara had to do it openly.” This is a TERRIBLE vote for a TERRIBLE reason, and it’s basically the killer vote in a lot of ways. You're leaving out a rather important point of my reasoning. Yes, Chucara role in some aspect was more hidden than a standard politician (target doesn't have to switch his vote himself, no official vote counts on demand, anonymous vote count) but he also had to publicly vote for the person he switched the vote to. So in my reasoning that neatly fitted with giving the role to a role but with the drawback that town can figure it out. I recently did something similar in Blockey's Halloween Mini, by giving a scum an extra, secret vote but unable to place his normal vote on his fellow scum. Anyway, in this game I was completely wrong - with hindsight I was too much trying to second guess the moderator rather than playing it save . Y'all, that's eight power roles out of (probably) 14 Town roles. So far. The italics are a bit overdone here - there could be five scum, there could be very few vanilla (eg just a single one like in Dr. Horrible), etc.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:55:58 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Nov 12, 2009 13:55:58 GMT -5
Sorry for my inactiveness. I knew going into the game that I'd not have the time I wanted to play to my full potential, and I said that at sign-ups. I work retail, so this is the busy time, and I'm a full time student, so finals are approaching. Outside of that, I had enough time to be active, and play. but my girlfriends half-brother was in the hospital for a couple weeks leading up to his death last week, so I've been trying to help her and her family deal with that as well. Frankly, this game just didn't matter anymore. I meant to get online and say I'd be MIA, but everything I thought to do it, I wasn't near a computer.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 13:58:28 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 12, 2009 13:58:28 GMT -5
Having just come off a game where four of five Scum players went completely inactive for days at a time (two were replaced by subs, one asked for a sub but was too late, the last showed up once every other Day at most, always with RL excuses), I will argue against your contention that the wholly inactive are more likely Town than Scum, Storyteller. Well, if we're dueling with anecdotes, I can say that in my experience, virtually every player who has disappeared completely has been Town. I just don't understand the contention that an Internet failure, for instance, is more likely to affect a player assigned a Scum role in an online game.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:00:47 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 12, 2009 14:00:47 GMT -5
My condolences, hockey, you're absolutely right that an online game isn't that important compared to that.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:00:55 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 14:00:55 GMT -5
It's OK, hockeyguy. Just a game. Be well.
|
|