|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 1, 2010 18:18:19 GMT -5
Beaker
Also a favorite. Sort of the Wile E. Coyote of the Muppets, only Honeydew always mauled him instead of Beaker mauling himself.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Feb 1, 2010 22:26:22 GMT -5
Recorded.
Cookies is up.
* I just noticed that I mispoke earlier. Lost will start us off for next round. I earlier said she would be last.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 1, 2010 23:25:32 GMT -5
Sam the Eagle[/color] Darnit, Sister! Beaker was so going to be mine.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 1, 2010 23:26:28 GMT -5
wow that size 1 font is microscopic. That says: Darnit, Sister! Beaker was so going to be mine.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Feb 1, 2010 23:36:53 GMT -5
Answer Recorded.
Be right back.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 1, 2010 23:48:23 GMT -5
Well, Sam is usually my second choice.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Feb 1, 2010 23:50:16 GMT -5
End Of Question Round 2
Round Standings :
Red Skeezix : 800 points for Rizzo the Rat Cookies : 700 for Sam the Eagle Total Lost : 500 for The Sweedish Chef Sister Coyote : 400 points for Beaker NAF : 0 Points for Rowlf
Lew Zealand [Boomerang Fish thrower] 1000 Janice [Of the electric Mayhem] 900 Rizzo the Rat 800 Sam The Eagle 700 Pepe the king prawn 600 The Sweedish Chef 500 Beaker 400 Animal 300 Gonzo 200 Fozzie Bear 100
----
Game Standings :
1. Total Lost with 1,000 Points 2. NAF and Red Skeezix with 800 Points Tie 4.Cookies with 700 Points 5. Sister Coyote with 400 Points
----
Let's start voting discussions.
I think we still need official votes first in PM though.
Once I give the go ahead, you can mention who you voted for.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 11:23:08 GMT -5
Meeko, could you also give a recap of the previous round results when you post the new results?[/b]
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 12:01:43 GMT -5
Let's start voting discussions. I think we still need official votes first in PM though. Once I give the go ahead, you can mention who you voted for. Wait, I'm confused. Does this mean: We can talk about whatever, just not who we actually vote for.
OR
We have to vote via PM before we can talk about where our suspicions lie?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Feb 2, 2010 12:17:36 GMT -5
Meeko, could you also give a recap of the previous round results when you post the new results? [/b] Thanks![/quote] Q1. US President : Cookies Taft 0 Voted NAF Skeezix McKinely 0 Voted Ed Total Lost FDR 500 Voted Skeezix NAF Cleveland 800 Voted Ed [twice] Special Ed Nixon 700 Voted Lost Eliminated Townie Sister Coyote Filmore 0 Voted NAF Q2. Muppets Skeezix Rizzo 800 [+0] Total Lost S. Chef 500 [+500] NAF Rowlf 0 [+800] Coyote Beaker 400 [+0] Cookies Sam Eagle 700 [+0] Overall : Total Lost 1000 NAF , Red Skeezix 800 Cookies 700 Coyote 400 Something like that ?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 2, 2010 12:33:00 GMT -5
Yes, that's lovely.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Feb 2, 2010 12:34:56 GMT -5
Let's start voting discussions. I think we still need official votes first in PM though. Once I give the go ahead, you can mention who you voted for. Wait, I'm confused. Does this mean: We can talk about whatever, just not who we actually vote for.
OR
We have to vote via PM before we can talk about where our suspicions lie?
I don't want ""Official"" votes to influence other players votes. The game show allows for conversation first, then each player writes down a name of a player to eliminate. You are free to say whatever you want in the thread, SHORT of an official vote. You are free to vote for whoever you want in the PM. Even if the vote is on someone you do not mention in the thread. I will of course count your ""Official"" vote from the PM, and I will disclose it publicly when I announce the results. Send the Vote PM at any time. I will announce results after I get all votes in. Again, you guys had commentary on your votes last round, in your PM that were better suited in the public thread. Now is the time for Theories and what not.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 2, 2010 12:56:05 GMT -5
I'm bothered by the way NAF keeps pushing to give answers ahead of time; I realize it's frustrating to have to wait, of course. And I'm really bothered by the suggestion last round that a "secret" answer be sent to the mod. Which is why I voted NAF last round.
Since I never got around to saying so before.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 2, 2010 14:12:18 GMT -5
I'm kinda parsing NAF's public request to pre-submit as a null tell. Anyone who would actually do so (as opposed to lying about doing so, or wanting to do so) would either have to be going first or submit a list of choices in case their first choice(s) were already selected by someone else. Assuming he is not the Cheater, it would be a reasonable request so as not to potentially delay the game. Assuming his is the Cheater, actually submitting such a list would put him at a big disadvantage, I think, since much of the Cheater's power comes from choosing how to manipulate his/her own score. I have a hard time that the Cheater would voluntarily leave his/her score to chance by submitting a list and then wandering away. Of course NAF could be the Cheater who is just lying and trying to advance an idea that would put the Cheater at a disadvantage so that he doesn't look like the Cheater.
There also isn't really enough being said by anyone else to draw many conclusions about, which makes me wonder about suspecting the talkative, not that anyone is being really talkative in this game but you get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 2, 2010 14:22:26 GMT -5
I do get your drift, and I think that the lack of conversation is potentially a problem in this game as it stands.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 2, 2010 14:38:56 GMT -5
Maybe the different spin on the mechanics are taking a little while to get used to. Here are some reasons I see to loosen tongues/fingers compared to traditional games...
1) With only one Cheater, no one has to worry about being perceived as complicit with the Cheater. That is not to say that "snuggling" is not still a data point, but the only overly manipulative snuggling that could possibly take place would be the Cheater doing the snuggling.
2) As we've already seen, not having public discussion about how we're going to vote puts us at a big disadvantage when the vote results are presented by the Mod. Ties play right into the Cheater's hands and there is just too much randomness in the answers, order of answers, and scoring to base solid votes on that data alone.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 14:56:57 GMT -5
I don't know what the problem with this game is yet, but I think it doesn't quite work right now. That's ok though because I think it can work. We can save talking about tweaks until after the game though.
I think that right now, it's a game of real random vs. psudo random. Town is big enough that they have the ability to wait a few rounds to get some real data to work with, and so that's what we have to do.
Based on just what the numbers look like, right now I would say that TL, Red, and Cookies are my top three suspects (in fairness, if I didn't know I wasn't the cheater I would be on that list too).
Based on what they have said, I think that TL is actually less likely than either Cookies or Red, and right now if you held a gun to my head I would say that Red is the best bet for being the cheater over Cookies.
That said, we really don't have quite enough data to make an firm conclusions yet so these are educated guesses at best.
To Sister re: me wanting to get on with the game.
You try being stuck behind Total Lost when she isn't around.
|
|
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 Feb 2, 2010 15:01:01 GMT -5
I think the Cheater will manipulate the scores - but I'd have to say that since I'm a head right now. I have no idea where to look for the cheater - but feel kind of sad if people think I such a fool, that I'd play this obvious and take points just to prove I could be the lead...
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 2, 2010 15:17:12 GMT -5
Based on what they have said, I think that TL is actually less likely than either Cookies or Red, and right now if you held a gun to my head I would say that Red is the best bet for being the cheater over Cookies. That said, we really don't have quite enough data to make an firm conclusions yet so these are educated guesses at best. Care to elaborate? Are you basing this short list on scores? statements? What statements are you finding suspicious and why? Firm or not, a conclusion is made every cycle and someone gets booted.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 15:38:15 GMT -5
The short list is based on scores and relative value of the scores. Honestly, I think that this information is misleading at best until the next round (I hope), but you have to start somewhere and I can't think of a better place to start.
Coyote got a 0 score in round 1 and a low score in round 2. It's possible she is the cheater, but I think it is less likely that the cheater would intentionally low-ball themselves like that repeatedly.
TL is lower on my list than you or Red because she is picking essentially what I would expect a non american to pick in this US centric (so far) game*. Also her lower participation levels are not consistant with what I would expect from the cheater. Yet she is still on the watch list because she is, once again, at the top of the score sheet but not at the very top (except in overall score).
I am picking Red over you for being the actual cheater in this scenario, Cookies, because you are, like me, trying to play the game. So while the numbers work against you, your actions work in your favor.
*BTW That's not intended as an insult Meeko. Everything has bias.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 15:41:17 GMT -5
I think the Cheater will manipulate the scores - but I'd have to say that since I'm a head right now. I have no idea where to look for the cheater - but feel kind of sad if people think I such a fool, that I'd play this obvious and take points just to prove I could be the lead... THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE CHEATER WOULD WANT US TO THINK!!!!!! It's a double bluff blind, with a criss cross! You are out thinking us my doing what only the cheater would do! Or, what you said. ;D You are still on my list.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 15:48:03 GMT -5
2) As we've already seen, not having public discussion about how we're going to vote puts us at a big disadvantage when the vote results are presented by the Mod. Ties play right into the Cheater's hands and there is just too much randomness in the answers, order of answers, and scoring to base solid votes on that data alone. This is easy to rectify since Meeko is posting the vote counts once all the votes are recieved. Everyone just says who their strongest suspicion is for. If they say one thing and do another, then they can be held accountable and it gives us another data point. Since we are free to discuss at any time any topic short of official votes, there is no reason why we should not say who we are most suspicious of. "Based on what they have said, I think that TL is actually less likely than either Cookies or Red" Since you have mentioned 3 of 4 people who are not you here, why have you excluded Sister C from your suspicion net?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 15:50:17 GMT -5
I am picking Red over you for being the actual cheater in this scenario, Cookies, because you are, like me, trying to play the game. So while the numbers work against you, your actions work in your favor. How exactly am I not playing the game. Also: effing simul.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 16:01:27 GMT -5
I am picking Red over you for being the actual cheater in this scenario, Cookies, because you are, like me, trying to play the game. So while the numbers work against you, your actions work in your favor. How exactly am I not playing the game. Also: effing simul. Prior to these last two posts (really only one post broken up into two) you have had exactly one post that related to the game outside of questions to the moderator and posted answers. It was an explanation of why you voted for Ed, who as it turns out, was not the cheater. Now, I am the first to admit that much of my case against you is equally true for me...but I'm not really all that interested in convincing anyone that I'm the cheater.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 16:14:22 GMT -5
Prior to these last two posts (really only one post broken up into two) you have had exactly one post that related to the game outside of questions to the moderator and posted answers. And yesterday, you had 0 vote related posts between answers and voting. You didn't even hint where your suspicion was. As you so adroitly put it we measure up evenly by your current yardstick. I do not see this as a reason implies that you are the cheater. I will however, assume that your yardstick is faulty. My line of thinking right now is that a possible cheater strategy would be to try to survive the random voting based on little data. Not draw a lot of suspicion. Fly low. That's why I'm the most suspicious of Sister Coyote.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2010 16:18:39 GMT -5
Prior to these last two posts (really only one post broken up into two) you have had exactly one post that related to the game outside of questions to the moderator and posted answers. And yesterday, you had 0 vote related posts between answers and voting. You didn't even hint where your suspicion was. As you so adroitly put it we measure up evenly by your current yardstick. I do not see this as a reason implies that you are the cheater. I will however, assume that your yardstick is faulty. My line of thinking right now is that a possible cheater strategy would be to try to survive the random voting based on little data. Not draw a lot of suspicion. Fly low. That's why I'm the most suspicious of Sister Coyote. I think that is a valid opinion as well. My yardstick may well be faulty, I don't see any way around that right now. I don't think we can do anything beyond random voting until next round at the earliest. So the more we talk and the more data we generate the happier I am. Let's talk about Sister a bit. What do you have?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 17:14:21 GMT -5
Sister: Answered Millard Filmore 0 pts last answer. Answered Beaker 400 pts. 2nd to last answer. Voted For NAF - Because he was pushing the game along, suggesting sort of policy. What I'm seeing is a no point answer of 3 that day, which puts her in the largest group score wise. With her answering last she would have been able to gauge whether or not to get points or not, since two of us already answered with zero points, it would be effective camouflage.
A vote because of what looks like a null tell to me. Pushing a policy, while it has a scum motive also has the caveat that scum is less likely to do it because it is so transparent.
The answer today being so close to the middle mark with her being the 2nd last to answer, would have put her in the middle overall if Cookies had answered with no points today. So the 400,if intentional looks like a shot to the middle. Which fits with laying low.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 2, 2010 17:50:25 GMT -5
Way to mischaracterize my point there, Red.
I voted for NAF not for pushing the game along, but for asking for the option to send a "secret" answer (or, more accurately, group of answers) to the Mod. You want to vote me for lowballing myself, fine, assuming I was, which I'm not, but let's not make a case based on false evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 2, 2010 17:51:22 GMT -5
NETA: And I fail to see what my placement in a random answer order has to do with a damn thing, either; it's not like I put myself toward the bottom of the list.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 2, 2010 18:17:21 GMT -5
Way to mischaracterize my point there, Red. I voted for NAF not for pushing the game along, but for asking for the option to send a "secret" answer (or, more accurately, group of answers) to the Mod. You want to vote me for lowballing myself, fine, assuming I was, which I'm not, but let's not make a case based on false evidence. I thought you were referring to the suggested policy of everyone submitting answers to the mod being easily gamed by the cheater. But when I go back to double check, I see I must have got my wires crossed. I had it in my head that he was saying everyone should do that so the game doesn't get held up. So I retract that point of my argument. This is why I was frustrated when people had already voted yesterday before there was any real discussion. Simply because people make mistakes. NETA: And I fail to see what my placement in a random answer order has to do with a damn thing, either; it's not like I put myself toward the bottom of the list. The order in which we give answers can give clues about what the motivations are. The actual position is not telling all on its own, but I think that answers plus the answer order should be considered. Especially since it gives context to evaluate the response in. I'm drawing possible strategies that the cheater might employ. Lying low is one of them, and it so happens that you fit into that strategy. Based on both your answers and the timing of them. While you are the most suspicious to me at this point, I'll be withholding my vote at least until there is some more commentary.
|
|