Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 10:07:06 GMT -5
Of all the players able to vote and Parzival and I are the only ones who hasn't yet.
redskeezix voted SisC - but later unvoted and so far hasn't voted someone else/re-voted SisC.
Of the players to be voted only SisC and MHaye got votes - leaving BillMC (3 post), Natlaw (8 posts), Inner Stickler (11 posts) and Sundry (3 posts). But remember that post-count includes the comfirmations as well.
Still I think the pressure vote for Mhaye is a bit odd IMO ATM. Others seem just as quiet in this Day.
I'll have to vote soon - and I'm thinking of both SisC (the claim thing is odd - but doesn't have to be scummy) and BillMc (only showed up to say he'd not been around before - bur once more doesn't seem particuali scummy).
I'll think about it on my way home - and vote when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 10:13:40 GMT -5
Apparently the day hasn't ended yet? I'm confused Mod: When is the end of the day and what time/timezone?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 10:34:10 GMT -5
He said Tuesday but didn't really give a time.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 11:11:14 GMT -5
I better vote then. As I've made clear there isn't a really good vote toDay (IMO) and therefore I'll do what I seem to do in every game we play together. I'll vote BillMC for not being as big a part of this game as I think he could have been.
Vote BillMC
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 29, 2009 11:11:29 GMT -5
I think we should consider making a "If I could I'd vote"-system for ourselves. That way players not able to vote D1 would still make a "fake" vote. This would give us more data in Days to come and if would help us getting a better feeling of what's going on in the minds of those not able to vote. I agree completely TL. Not having a vote history will make this even tougher. The SisC thing is really bugging me though. I really hate thinking that she is telling the truth and this is just one big bumbling start to a town on town day 1 lynch. I was thinking through a way to somehow get these investigations to work to possibly confirm if she is telling the truth or not. What if both the diviners investigate the same person tonight? Then sistercoyote can give us her results start of D2. The other diviner won't need to reveal themselves unless SC is lying about the result. But then, an outed diviner would be a good trade off to confirm her as a hunter. Would that work?? And would voting for a No Lynch today give us more time to figure this out? Not sure if there is enough time to get that accomplished. I would just hate to start off lynching a role that can be potentially helpful without giving us much to go on later. So for my "If I could vote I would" ... I think I would be unvoting sistercoyote and voting No Lynch
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 29, 2009 11:39:24 GMT -5
Asking texcat's question again... Will the hunters be notified if they are severed?
and If a Diviner investigates a Shiver or someone who is no longer attached, what result will they be given? Will they just be told there is no attachment?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 11:49:46 GMT -5
I was thinking through a way to somehow get these investigations to work to possibly confirm if she is telling the truth or not. What if both the diviners investigate the same person tonight? Then sistercoyote can give us her results start of D2. The other diviner won't need to reveal themselves unless SC is lying about the result. But then, an outed diviner would be a good trade off to confirm her as a hunter. Would that work?? And would voting for a No Lynch today give us more time to figure this out? Not sure if there is enough time to get that accomplished. I would just hate to start off lynching a role that can be potentially helpful without giving us much to go on later. So for my "If I could vote I would" ... I think I would be unvoting sistercoyote and voting No Lynch This plan has problems. 1. It reduces the number of investigated players. 2. It tells scum who sister c would investigate, since scum knows who they are connected to they would know whether or not they have to try to kill sister c tonight. 3. It would require sister c to out the role of the person investigated, that person might be the opposite diviner. 4.If we require that she not out another's role, it's easy for a scum sister c to game, all she has to do is say she is investigating the other hunter who she would know the name of their connection. 5. If sister c is scum, then it enables her to out at least one diviner, by simply being wrong. I really dislike the no lynch option. It allows scum to control the flow of information by picking the only deaths. Since there is little chance of sister c.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 11:55:50 GMT -5
NETA: That last sentence should have been deleted.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 29, 2009 12:18:34 GMT -5
The issue that has to be decided is whether we can test either of the claimants.
Firstly the diviner claim. From the rules.From that, we can deduce that the Diviner's investigation fails if the connection between the target and their "other half" has been severed. If they get no reply we can deduce (in the absence of a roleblocker) that the connection has been severed, or that the target is the Shiver.
Also, consider what happens if there is a counterclaim now. I submit that the Dark Hunter would be off their rocker to make a false counterclaim now, as they guarantee a successful Day 3 lynch, after being severed on Night 1 or 2, thus taking no-one with them. Consequently, if SisterC were actually the Hunter, the Dark Diviner claiming could be a good move. We'd lose one-half of the Diviner team, but take out one-half of the Hunters. On the whole, advantage us. The only reason not to claim would be the uncertainty of side-effects - ie who would also die because of the linking.
I really think we should be focussing on someone other than Sister Coyote Today, as she can generate information Tomorrow.
What about the Gloom?This looks like a standard Doc, but with a degree of verifiability; if only one death occurs, it's possible that the victim's linked player was protected by the Gloom. Again, I think it worthwhile leaving Natlaw off the lynch schedule, Today at any rate.
More a bit later, when I've reviewed the other three Dark player posts.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Dec 29, 2009 12:54:23 GMT -5
I'm hoping there'll be more discussion today and I'm not just the last vote in.
It seems to me that SisterC can be counterclaimed by the Dark Diviner, but not until Tomorrow. Although she could be scum just trying to pull down power roles. I'm not really sold on lynching her.
One positive thing about this game - unless there are alignments we are unaware of, only one person on each side is lying.
Sundry's post smacks of premature handwringing, as if she knows more about SisterC than we do. Vote: sundry
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 29, 2009 13:24:25 GMT -5
Sundry's post smacks of premature handwringing, as if she knows more about SisterC than we do. No handwringing, not at all. Just trying to suggest an option I thought might be viable and spark some further discussion. This plan has problems. 1. It reduces the number of investigated players. 2. It tells scum who sister c would investigate, since scum knows who they are connected to they would know whether or not they have to try to kill sister c tonight. 3. It would require sister c to out the role of the person investigated, that person might be the opposite diviner. 4.If we require that she not out another's role, it's easy for a scum sister c to game, all she has to do is say she is investigating the other hunter who she would know the name of their connection. 5. If sister c is scum, then it enables her to out at least one diviner, by simply being wrong. I really dislike the no lynch option. It allows scum to control the flow of information by picking the only deaths. Since there is little chance of sister c. I agree with your point about the no lynch option. I just don't like the fact that in this game, we might very well be mislynching two town power roles with little info to be gleaned from it. And yes, it's not a problem free plan to be sure. Just thinking if it would be worth trying to gain a confirmed town or potentially find the hunter without blindly lynching two people.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 29, 2009 14:20:04 GMT -5
For the record, I would be voting Sister Coyote if I could. I can see the argument that she'll be generating information to check her second claim with, but with so few mislynches (unless good Shine/sever choices happen) I don't think we can afford the leniency in this game. It seems to me that SisterC can be counterclaimed by the Dark Diviner, but not until Tomorrow. Although she could be scum just trying to pull down power roles. I'm not really sold on lynching her. I said earlier that the Dark Diviner shouldn't claim, but now I'm not so sure. If we give benefit of the doubt to Sister Coyote, then I must consider protecting her so we can get a guaranteed Diviner result Tomorrow. So much wine I'll probably get drunk.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 29, 2009 15:21:59 GMT -5
In my last post I suggested that we should not be lynching either claimant to a role Today. I think we should be firing into the unclaimed pool. I should say, before I start waffling, that I haven't wasted my time thinking about who the Dark players are connected to, because we don't have any information on who is linked to who; we have no wish to kill (say) the Shine, but the Shine could be linked to any one of five players, and there is no way to find out before we lynch. So forget it Today. Come Tomorrow, we'll have a bit of info and can start thinking about whether a lynch will result in a collaterel Hunter death. It should come as no surprise that I won't advocate lynching me; after all I know I'm Town. That leaves BillMc, Inner Stickler and Sundry. A reread of the game thread leaves me with no real suspicion on any of them. - I thought Bill had made a slip in overestimating the number of deaths, but that didn't stand up to scrutiny (ie I overlooked a rule the first time I read his post.
- Inner5 Stickler may have been trying to get on my good side by pointing out the obvious; that may have been to avoid what he thought was a mislynch, or it may have been to get on my good side, and ,ake me not suspect him. On the other hand, why try and deflect me from voting him? I can't; he's as much in the Dark as I am.
- Sundry suggested a plan which had the effect of limiting the amount of information the Town got, that required in-thread coordination and thus became susceptible to Hunter interference. The stated foal was to attempt verification of Sister Coyote, itself a laudable aim.
I should note that I actually considered the same suggestion Sundry made, but dismissed it because of the problems I've just mentioned. So, it is something a Townsperson might have come up with (because both Sundry and I did, and we can't both be Hunters). I suspect that, if I had to vote for a Dark Sider I'd be voting Sundry. However, I could also construct a case against IS; namely that he is the Dark Hunter and knows that I'm connected to the Light Hunter, so he doesn't want to see me killed. Ah, the convolutions of this game. I really think that it's not a good idea to lynch Sister Coyote when she's made a testable claim. I'd rather any of the four of us, even me, than Sister C Today.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Dec 29, 2009 15:38:34 GMT -5
I'm the Gloom. Please don't lynch me. No, you're not. I'm the Gloom. Please lynch Sister Coyote. Did I mention I am confused as hell with this game? Then again, seeing coyote claiming [and reclaiming] I wonder if a "Monty Hall" problem has not presented itself here. I'm trying to eke out some intel in this game, and that's hard to do. But, lets try this on for size: Unvote CoyoteVote NatlawYour statement to "please" lynch Coyote just pings me wrong, and I am not sure exactly how. I would have to understand this game better.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 15:39:26 GMT -5
I really think that it's not a good idea to lynch Sister Coyote when she's made a testable claim. I'd rather any of the four of us, even me, than Sister C Today. I hate to be rude - but I feel the need to point out that in a game with hunters like this: Role 2: The Hunters These are the "scum" in the game. There is one on each side. These are the only other people in the game with rules about their linkages. They can not be linked to each other. The also know who they are linked to. No one else in the game knows who they're linked too. The hunters can communicate privately at any time, and share a night kill. You'd know - if we presume for a minute that you're a hunter - if the other hunter was linked to SisC. That would make your reasons for saving SisC pro-scum even though you make them sound pro-town. And the fact that you're willing to be voted for like that, makes me a bit jumpy... So far my vote stands...
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 15:46:22 GMT -5
Is a tie = no lynch OR = Random lynch???[/b]
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 29, 2009 15:56:52 GMT -5
Your statement to "please" lynch Coyote just pings me wrong, and I am not sure exactly how. I would have to understand this game better. I'll try to take it slow: 1) There is only one Gloom 2) There is only one Hunter on the Dark Side 1 + 2) If two people claim Gloom, one is a lying Hunter (or a townie mistakenly false claiming ) Since I'm the Gloom, Sister Coyote had to be lying and I counter claimed (a doctor outed for a scum when there are only two scum seems fair to me). With SC now claiming Diviner I am the only one claiming Gloom. Unless you want to claim Gloom, your vote makes no sense at all. The 'please' phrasing was me making a bit fun of SC's 'please', please recalibrate your scumdar. Or tldr: WTF?! You're voting an uncounter-claimed doctor in an open setup!
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 16:00:06 GMT -5
I hope Mr. Blockey will give us some kind of warning before the day is over.
Based on the discussion today, sundry's suggestion of no lynch strikes me as the scummiest Dark side comment. That combined with a plan that has some very obvious anti-town pitfalls. It's weak, but it's all I got right now. Vote: sundry
Also, it's really really tricky to get any kind of read on my light side compatriots when they are all voting for different people creating a really big one vote tie. Which basically hands the votes to a hunter who is willing to jump in and hammer at the last second.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 29, 2009 16:13:36 GMT -5
Unofficial vote count Day One:
Sister Coyote (1): Meeko [33-103], redskeezix [59-71], (Natlaw [63]), (Inner Stickler [64]), texcat [79] MHaye (1): pedescribe [57] BillMc (1): Total Lost [93] sundry (2): Parzival [99], (Mhaye [102]), redskeezix [107] Natlaw (1): Meeko [103] No lynch (0): (sundry [100]) No vote (0): (BillMc), (Sister Coyote)
The Dark Side pseudo votes between braces as I read them, corrections welcome.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 29, 2009 17:04:36 GMT -5
Since another dark diviner has not stepped up and claimed, I am beginning to think SisC's 2nd claim might be true. Of course, there have been a few pleas for the real dark diviner not to stand up. I think that if someone has a counter-claim, they should make it, as this would clearly point to SisC as not only as a lying scum, but as a lying scum trying to expose roles. The counter-claim would ensure Sis's lynch and prevent a mis-lynch as well.
I am going to leave my vote on Sis for the moment while I ponder a better target.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 29, 2009 17:32:42 GMT -5
Unvote: MHaye
Because he's talking now.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 17:40:25 GMT -5
Did I mention I am confused as hell with this game? Then again, seeing coyote claiming [and reclaiming] I wonder if a "Monty Hall" problem has not presented itself here. I'm trying to eke out some intel in this game, and that's hard to do. But, lets try this on for size: Unvote Coyote Vote Natlaw Your statement to "please" lynch Coyote just pings me wrong, and I am not sure exactly how. I would have to understand this game better. bleached by me Meeko, dear, it wouldn't make any sense for Natlaw to be scum. If SisC is town and Natlaw false claimed to get her lynched all that would do is mean on Day 3, the light side lynches Natlaw. Because as soon as SisC dies, Natlaw is exposed as a liar. As it turns out, SisC made a mistake and claimed the wrong thing. So either SisC is the Dark Diviner (a cop) and Natlaw is the Gloom (a doc) or SisC is scum and Natlaw is still the Gloom. If scum claim anything, they're going to claim Victim since multiples of those will be harder to figure out. I would say your vote looks scummy, but frankly, it should be immediately obvious how poor a play it is for scum.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 29, 2009 19:06:19 GMT -5
You'd know - if we presume for a minute that you're a hunter - if the other hunter was linked to SisC. That would make your reasons for saving SisC pro-scum even though you make them sound pro-town. Sundry is making me jumpy for the same reason. MHaye suggested a vote for himself instead of Sis, but Sundry has come up with an elaborate, unworkable plan that finally involves a claim by the light diviner. Not sure how that would be any different than the dark diviner just making a counter-claim now. Sundry's alternative vote is not for herself, but rather for no lynch. Contrary to popular opinion, I think that no lynch on day 1 is often a good strategy. In this game, however, as numerous people have already pointed out, we have very good odds of finding a hunter on day 1. Far better odds than a normal game. And so no lynch does not seem like a good idea at all. Unvote: Sister Coyote Vote: Sundry
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 29, 2009 20:12:27 GMT -5
I'm only here for a moment, wish I knew for sure when the day was going to end and what the vote count is. If I'm not mistaken that puts me in the lead. ?? You'd know - if we presume for a minute that you're a hunter - if the other hunter was linked to SisC. That would make your reasons for saving SisC pro-scum even though you make them sound pro-town. Sundry is making me jumpy for the same reason. MHaye suggested a vote for himself instead of Sis, but Sundry has come up with an elaborate, unworkable plan that finally involves a claim by the light diviner. Not sure how that would be any different than the dark diviner just making a counter-claim now. Sundry's alternative vote is not for herself, but rather for no lynch. Contrary to popular opinion, I think that no lynch on day 1 is often a good strategy. In this game, however, as numerous people have already pointed out, we have very good odds of finding a hunter on day 1. Far better odds than a normal game. And so no lynch does not seem like a good idea at all. elaborate and unworkable?? Seriously? I don't see that it was anything quite THAT outrageous. And my goal was to figure out some way to accomplish confirming SisC and avoid the light diviner claiming. Ok, so it's been pointed out that it's not so workable. I'd rather express an idea here and get help then keep something to myself that might work.
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 29, 2009 20:22:06 GMT -5
Sundry's alternative vote is not for herself, but rather for no lynch. Why would the alternative be to vote for myself??? Unless I was the vanilla, which I'm not. ((sigh)) I'm the shiver, don't lynch me.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 20:43:35 GMT -5
Of course you are. How many freaking power roles can we out in one day?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 20:45:47 GMT -5
is anyone going counterclaim sundry? Unvote: sundry
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 29, 2009 20:59:24 GMT -5
Of course you are. How many freaking power roles can we out in one day? Three, obviously. is anyone going counterclaim sundry? Unvote: sundry (Bleached). I am not counterclaiming. The above quote by IS set off my scumdar, quite loudly. It's quite clear that the events surrounding Natlaw's claim were a freak. I didn't like his reaction, which feels to me like he's trying to smudge Sundry. So if I had a vote, I'd be moving it from Sundry to IS about now.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 21:15:39 GMT -5
Then it's a good thing you can't. It was supposed to more a commentary on town's rotten luck but I can see your rationale. It's wrong but I can see it.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 29, 2009 21:48:58 GMT -5
Arrrgghh. Assuming no counter-claims, Unvote: Sundry .
If the three claims are true, I guess we are now down to 2 vanilla victims and a hunter in the group of InnerStickler, BillMc, and MHaye.
I know we've had some discussion about whether to sever connections or not, but things have changed with all of the claims. It seems to me that it makes sense to sever the known power roles. The Gloom/Shine can only protect two of them, and so it might make sense for the Shivers to say who they are splitting? If they happen to split someone connected to a hunter, it would be bad to let it be known, but I think the advantage of knowing who to protect out weighs the disadvantage. Also there is the advantage that the Diviners know who to investigate. Do these roles work on both sides of the mirror? Can the light shiver disconnect someone on the dark side?
Eeenie, meenie, minie, moe... Vote: BillMc mostly for his relative inactivity. I'm not getting the scum vibes from InnerS that MHaye seems to be getting. And MHaye is here and seems to be trying to help us light townies.
|
|