|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:02:20 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 14:02:20 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. Where did I say that? I'm beginning to think that in intentional cases, the psychological factors favor Scum drop-out over Town drop-out.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:05:33 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 14:05:33 GMT -5
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. Is this true? I know that you and maybe others were speaking as if it were, but I never understood it that way and I don't think that's how Chucara explained it either. Correct me if I'm wrong? Though it's kind of a moot point right now, maybe.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:19:38 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 12, 2009 14:19:38 GMT -5
No, it might not have worked that way: -Chucara voted himself and BillMc in the same post -BillMc voted someone else -Chucara voted someone else -(IIRC SC voted BillMC) -Next official vote count the person Bill voted for had no votes and BillMc one more vote than known voters for him.
Chucara later said he just needed a post with a vote. So not 'had to' but it was what did to make the switch.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 14:22:33 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 12, 2009 14:22:33 GMT -5
"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. But I never claimed that that was my original reason to vote him like you said Yesterday: Later, he claimed that Idle's confusion was what had prompted his vote in the first place. My reasons to keep my vote changed, but I didn't try to retcon my original reason.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 15:06:47 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 15:06:47 GMT -5
Not retcon -- I think you just forgot, because the rationale was subsidiary to your main goal of poking Idle (for better or for ill; subsequent events have made me a bit more comfortable with the idea that you are Town).
I'm not going to address this point anymore, because I think what I said in the post where I accused you yesterday stands for itself (not to mention what I've added since then), and anything more will just add noise akin to what I was objecting to about your interactions on Day One. I acknowledge that you claimed a changed rationale for keeping your vote on Idle; that's not what I'm referring to when I say I see a contradiction.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 18:33:20 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 12, 2009 18:33:20 GMT -5
I am so sorry to hear that Hockey . My deepest and heart felt sympathy to you and your family.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 18:45:17 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 12, 2009 18:45:17 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. I had been planning to, actually. Everyone who guessed "Mason can give themselves a little gold star. I will not confirm at this point whether there are any additional Masons. I hope I don't end up the same way I did last time I was a Mason. I hope you're doing okay, hockey.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 19:04:37 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 12, 2009 19:04:37 GMT -5
As nphase says, it's just a game. Be well, and remember to take care of yourself while you're taking care of others.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 19:18:43 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 12, 2009 19:18:43 GMT -5
most importantly, take care hockey.
thoughts and prayers.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 19:36:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 12, 2009 19:36:50 GMT -5
ok. i understand the information that lynches provide. i still am confused about why someone would vote someone who in their mind is a town power role just to avoid a no lynch. i mean, i'd rather them live to fight another day. guess i'm not that good at this fracking game. and yes story i did vote hockey purely for lurking. ideal stratey, maybe so maybe no but i continue to reiterate my oft stated position that in the absence of something just so blatant that even i couldn't screw it up that's where my vote will go. but that is a discussion for elsewhere. i guess what i don't understand is the following: story has this to say in N2.12 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? <end of snipped quote> so no problem with a soft claim, right. because the vote is close and it's day one. but it's followed up by this. 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? there is a three way tie and really it reads like it go any way. but now we go "insane" over the soft claim. i guess the subtlety is lost on me that would cause such a different reaction. and i continue to exhibit my excellence in mastery of bulletin board mechanics by screwing up another multi quote response. and steve i think i was the first to bring up chuc's inconsistency in her vote. i think i was also the first person to bring up the weird vote mechanics. additionally, i got after ped for his soft claim and weird claim threat. i'm not sure what more you are looking for.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 19:47:59 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 12, 2009 19:47:59 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? You might as well give us enough to confirm Squid (and yourself, too) now, since you've already given enough to make yourselves targets. I had been planning to, actually. Everyone who guessed "Mason can give themselves a little gold star. I will not confirm at this point whether there are any additional Masons. I hope I don't end up the same way I did last time I was a Mason. I hope you're doing okay, hockey. Yeah can I get a gold star?...LOL...I knew it...did not want to say anything cause I always feel the player should be the one that says, and not me but reading your posts that is what I was immediatly thinking. Hence why if you look at what i said in regards to you and yesterday it was "I think it is odd but I am willing to drop it and atleast a little bit of trust for now." My way of saying I think i am getting it, but will refrain from pushing it at all. For my 2 cents worth...I feel it would be best for you not to out the other mason(s). Since we obviously I am geussing by yesterday can take a stab at one of them, and therefore if that player wants to atleast pop in to validate then ok, but other wise, if lets say for example there is more then I think leaving scum in the dark is a better option atleast right now...maybe down the road but for now, it is fine to keep the geussing going. As i said this is just my 2 cents worth here but it is my incling of what is in the best interest of us all.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 20:11:01 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 12, 2009 20:11:01 GMT -5
I agree, no need at this point. If you have private communication, though (don't confirm or deny), tell Boozy to get his rear in here. We could use him.
(Obviously I'm inclined to believe the claim at this point.)
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 20:28:07 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 12, 2009 20:28:07 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? You might as well give us enough to confirm Squid (and yourself, too) now, since you've already given enough to make yourselves targets. I had been planning to, actually. Everyone who guessed "Mason can give themselves a little gold star. I will not confirm at this point whether there are any additional Masons. I hope I don't end up the same way I did last time I was a Mason. I hope you're doing okay, hockey. That was the coolest mason after-death confirm-my-fellow-masons move I've ever seen
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 20:29:58 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 12, 2009 20:29:58 GMT -5
Hockey, thoughts and prayers for you and yours.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 21:11:31 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 12, 2009 21:11:31 GMT -5
and steve i think i was the first to bring up chuc's inconsistency in her vote. i think i was also the first person to bring up the weird vote mechanics. additionally, i got after ped for his soft claim and weird claim threat. i'm not sure what more you are looking for. So basically you voted me for agreeing with you on one point but not all points? In other news I am a teensy tiny bit suspicious of the Kat revelation. Why not claim Mason to begin with? The waiting to claim until after dusk when no card-flip on the previous deaths and no Mason* claim makes me go, hmmmmm. *Come on, we all assumed Kat was claiming she and Boozy were masons, right?
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 21:31:28 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 12, 2009 21:31:28 GMT -5
steve you asked something along the lines of where did i come up with something original on Day one. i was trying to address that question.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 21:37:41 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 12, 2009 21:37:41 GMT -5
and steve i think i was the first to bring up chuc's inconsistency in her vote. i think i was also the first person to bring up the weird vote mechanics. additionally, i got after ped for his soft claim and weird claim threat. i'm not sure what more you are looking for. So basically you voted me for agreeing with you on one point but not all points? In other news I am a teensy tiny bit suspicious of the Kat revelation. Why not claim Mason to begin with? The waiting to claim until after dusk when no card-flip on the previous deaths and no Mason* claim makes me go, hmmmmm. *Come on, we all assumed Kat was claiming she and Boozy were masons, right? and i swear i am not picking on you. i don't get this at all. she kind of claimed that which we all assumed she would claim and then followed it up. the only flip was hockey. that would be incredibly ballsy for scum to make that claim betting that hockey flips not mason. i just can't even begin to see that.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 21:44:31 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 12, 2009 21:44:31 GMT -5
steve you asked something along the lines of where did i come up with something original on Day one. i was trying to address that question. The original question was why did you vote me on Day 1? You first accused me of waffling. When that didn't fly you waffled and said I wasn't original enough for you. I then questioned you on your own originality. I actually agreed with you on one point. The question remains: What was the reason for your original vote on me? It was Day 1. I posted things as I saw them and my comments agreed with some things you said and some things others said. What would you have me do? Say nothing? Disagree with things I actually agree with? Make shit up? Your reason for voting me was bullshit, IMHO.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 21:55:27 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 12, 2009 21:55:27 GMT -5
and that's fine. i thought it was good enough. but, apparently you and i could go back and forth forever and not see eye to eye.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 22:17:07 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 12, 2009 22:17:07 GMT -5
and i swear i am not picking on you. i don't get this at all. she kind of claimed that which we all assumed she would claim and then followed it up. the only flip was hockey. that would be incredibly ballsy for scum to make that claim betting that hockey flips not mason. i just can't even begin to see that. But she didn't actually claim mason until after dusk, the card was already flipped then, and no one counter claimed mason. So not quite so ballsy, eh?
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 12, 2009 23:58:56 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 12, 2009 23:58:56 GMT -5
<snip> In other news I am a teensy tiny bit suspicious of the Kat revelation. Why not claim Mason to begin with? The waiting to claim until after dusk when no card-flip on the previous deaths and no Mason* claim makes me go, hmmmmm. *Come on, we all assumed Kat was claiming she and Boozy were masons, right? One, no we didn't all assume she was a mason (no gold star for me ), I didn't even think mason until Natlaw mentioned it in the day thread, I was thinking some kind of investigative role. Two, the timing is a little suspicious, but no one has come forward to counterclaim, and they could do so at any point without her claiming something else, now that she's claimed mason. I have a guess at a couple of reasons why there might have been a delay, but I don't want to put words into someones mouth. So, Kat, what was the reason for the timing decision?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 0:31:04 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 13, 2009 0:31:04 GMT -5
I was toying with the idea of leading the scum to assume I was an investigator. If I could have arranged to have access right before Dawn, I might have carried that on until then. Yes, to deliberately paint a target on myself to keep alive some of the players who seem to have a clue. (Yes, the drawback to that was that a hypothetical doc might have targeted me instead of one of them.)
Also, I was hesitant about completely outing Boozy, considering that he's not here to even hint at whether he'd prefer stay in the closet. I spent the whole time going "Should I spill it all, or shouldn't I?" Having an in absentia partner sucks.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 7:02:16 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 13, 2009 7:02:16 GMT -5
Having an in absentia partner sucks. i know what you mean. i am on my third marriage.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 9:55:45 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 13, 2009 9:55:45 GMT -5
and i swear i am not picking on you. i don't get this at all. she kind of claimed that which we all assumed she would claim and then followed it up. the only flip was hockey. that would be incredibly ballsy for scum to make that claim betting that hockey flips not mason. i just can't even begin to see that. But she didn't actually claim mason until after dusk, the card was already flipped then, and no one counter claimed mason. So not quite so ballsy, eh? I think you're barking up the wrong tree. And furthermore I'm a bit suspicious. This is the second time (Chucara-the-godfather being the first) that you've spun something that is probably pretty simple into something much more complicated, both times regarding (now) known or likely Town. False-claiming Mason when you have no knowledge of whether or not there are true Masons in the game is ballsy, yes. We did not all assume Mason. My first thought was investigator (a talented player like Boozy going as silent as he has is a decent investigation target); I said as much later. Apparently I wasn't the only one. But in any case, there's no incentive for a real Mason to counterclaim prior to Kat's claim being set in stone. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hockeyguy's flip is rather irrelevant to that issue. I think you're just blowing smoke.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 10:27:02 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 13, 2009 10:27:02 GMT -5
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. 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. I'm not very sympathetic to excuses when the game cycle is one week long. It takes minimal time to post a simple "I'm having real-life problems and can't participate". If someone can't participate, I have sympathy for their real-life problem, but it's too easy for scum to manipulate if we let it pass in-game. Low participation is a peeve of mine, and I know I sound harsh, but it does benefit the town to aggressively pursue it. Sorry to hear your travails, hockey; I hope everyone is managing. While I was happy to lynch you, I don't doubt I'd make the same decision as you in the same circumstances.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 14:41:05 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 13, 2009 14:41:05 GMT -5
I'm not very sympathetic to excuses when the game cycle is one week long. It takes minimal time to post a simple "I'm having real-life problems and can't participate". If someone can't participate, I have sympathy for their real-life problem, but it's too easy for scum to manipulate if we let it pass in-game. Low participation is a peeve of mine, and I know I sound harsh, but it does benefit the town to aggressively pursue it. I'm not sure there's much point in this conversation, as I think you and I simply disagree here and there's not much to be done about it, but there's a half hour before the reveal, I'm not leaving work until then, and I've finished everything I have to do today, so what the heck: once more into so on and so forth. It's not about "sympathy." We're not making moral judgments here. I doubt anyone judges a player who can't participate in an out-of-game sense. The question at issue is whether lynching a player who can't participate for out-of-game reasons is good play in an in-game sense. I argue that it is not. I'm not sure I'm articulating this clearly, but if I don't appear on this site for a few days, it's for out-of-game reasons. Those things would happen whether I am Town or Scum. I am Town in this game, but if I were Scum, I still wouldn't have posted for the few real-life days prior to yesterday, because my Internet connection was spotty (I'm also moving to a new house, so free time is limited anyway). The absence and my alignment were wholly unrelated. I posit that this is almost always the case. In all the time I have been playing this game, I have never seen a player disappear from the game altogether as a strategy. Sure, I've seen players who happen to be Scum disappear for a Day or two because shit happens to them same as everyone else. I've seen Scum lurk - in the more limited sense that I have proposed, where they post infrequently or with minimal content but maintain their presence. But I've never seen a Scum player just up and decide not to participate at all in the hopes that they will be ignored. In fact, it would be profoundly stupid for Scum to do this as a strategic move, because in most cases a player who really and truly doesn't participate at all is eventually going to get modkilled, which would be bad for Town but even worse for Scum. So the players who vanish completely are generally - I'd go so far as to say almost invariably - doing it for out-of-game reasons, which are unrelated to alignment. Thus, lynching the player who vanishes is back to being random (ie, bad for Town). You saw this in action with hockeyguy yesterDay - and if not for Kat's intervention, apparently would have seen it in action with Boozy, too. ----------- AND - I'll go even further with the argument. Your unforgiving approach to this is actually a huge plus for the Scum, as long as they are lucky enough to not have out-of-game issues. Were I Scum in a game with you where you were selling the line you're selling and people were buying it, gaming you would be incredibly easy. I'd just participate, and make sure my fellows did the same. Just make sure you post three to four times a Day, don't make waves, don't rock the boat, because Pleonast is so focused on lynching non-posters - and able to convince others to follow him on that front - that as long as all of us post a few times each Day we'll be safe. It would be trivially easy to leverage a few easy mislynches of unfortunate Townies who have issues getting to the game (again, as long as no out-of-game misfortune befalls any of the hypothetical us), including who knows, maybe even a mislynch of a power role. Which is exactly what the Scum just did in this game.--- Once again, I'd argue that a really useful lynch-the-lurker strategy would be looking more closely at players who maintain their participation levels at hypothetically acceptable levels (ie, above zero) but provide limited content or relatively few posts. Those players are more likely lurking as a strategy, and thus more likely to be Scum than random chance would allow. --- So what the hell, I'll just say it: our most prominent "lurkers" (ie, total nonparticipants) appear to have been Townies (assuming Kat is being truthful)... and the scum knew this.It would thus have been quite to the advantage of the Scum in this game to promote an aggressive "lynch-the-lurker" approach or at least support this approach when it happened - because it's an approach that can be justified to many voters as Pro-Town once the results are known. "Sure, we just lynched a power role, but hey, lurking hurts Town. Gotta lynch those lurkers." Something to bear in mind as we roll into Day Three.
|
|
|
Night 2
Nov 13, 2009 14:59:25 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 13, 2009 14:59:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure there's much point in this conversation, as I think you and I simply disagree here and there's not much to be done about it, but there's a half hour before the reveal, I'm not leaving work until then, and I've finished everything I have to do today, so what the heck: once more into so on and so forth. I agree with this--we have a disagreement over basic strategy on this point. I don't see either of us changing our minds or trying to lynch each other over it. But as a Mafia player and designer, I love discussing this sort of thing. You're slightly mischaracterizing my position here. I'm not advocating lynching only non-participants, but also low participants. In fact, my strategy is pretty much what you describe: except that I include non-participates in my lynch net as well as low participants.
|
|