|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 15:48:35 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Apr 7, 2010 15:48:35 GMT -5
Are we going to get a final official vote count for Day One? Nope. If someone else wants to do it, though, they can.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 16:14:39 GMT -5
Post by fisheroo on Apr 7, 2010 16:14:39 GMT -5
From my post
Sister- First post just general basic strategy, then pops in once more to talk about the board itself. Really thin, I know, but it's all I got, and not comfortable lynching either of the other two vote leaders.
Opinion on Sister hasn't changed, but the day is young.
There must be something about my writing style-you thought I was scum in the Bastard Giraffe game, and you were wrong there, too.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 16:33:20 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 7, 2010 16:33:20 GMT -5
So, I'm a viable candidate because a) real life ate my board time and b) I happened to be online and respond to the mod in one of the short periods where I could get online?
Really?
You know, that's weak even for a Day 1 case. And I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a heel and a face. (I get it in terms of the game. I mean in terms of what matters to a name claim.)
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 18:30:53 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Apr 7, 2010 18:30:53 GMT -5
Well, here's my best estimate for the final vote count.
Day One - 16 players
Clockwork - 4 (Dorian, Shaggy, Peekercpa, Darth) Pleonast - 3 (Special Ed, Cookies, BillMc) SisterCoyote - 2 (Pleonast, fisheroo) Peekercpa - 1 (Boozy) fisheroo - 1 (NAF) Dorian - 1 (luv) No Votes - 5 (Nanook, CoyoteSister, Clockwork, Special Ed)
Colors: unknown, town
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 18:36:47 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Apr 7, 2010 18:36:47 GMT -5
You know, that's weak even for a Day 1 case. Players who don't make cases or even bother to vote don't get to make that complaint. The fact that you're complaining about it bothers me. I'm changing my vote back. unvote Dorianvote Sister CoyoteFor 1) not participating for 3 days and 50+ votes and then responding to the moderator instead of any player, and 2) complaining that the case against her is weak despite neither making a case nor voting herself.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 18:56:38 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 7, 2010 18:56:38 GMT -5
Looks like you listed Ed twice, Pleo.
And in case it is frowned upon to point out errors in other players posts without commenting otherwise about the game, I'll just say again that the moderator response angle continues to make no reasonable sense to me. It is also having the effect of tainting any case that I read that includes it, even if the rest of the case might have merit. I think it is a toxic rationale that, if it is continues, I'm likely to consider anti-town.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 19:55:26 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Apr 7, 2010 19:55:26 GMT -5
Hey everyone, Well that sucks about loosing peeker While unless there is a counter claim, I am going to assume for now Ed is the other mason. As for those that did not vote yesterday i am going to: Vote Nanook This is cause first no vote. And I have said before and will again to me by not voting you are essentially not taking part in the one true power the town has. Yes it can be swayed but at the end of the day voting is what this game is all about and by not voting you are essentially not participating the most important part. I do understand certain circumstances but coupled with a few other pings, makes me vote you. Seconed he only posted twice yesterday and while that is nothing by itself, what gets me suspicious is his seconed post, which to me almost seems like a post for the sake of posting. Here: At the time I made the comment regarding a name claim, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that this game was drawing, not from the whole of wrestling, but from a specific, limited time frame. Sure, people still changed sides some even if you limit when you're drawing on, but less so than other a longer period. However, since Idle has since implied at least that he drew on the larger WWE history, then my opinion on the name claim has changed some. This is turning into a rough game for me. I'm more of a reactive player, not usually one to lead the charge. But right now there's nothing to react to. Pleo's vanilla claim? I don't think I'm willing to vote him for it right now, and it seems likely he's said all he's going to say about it at this time. I'm not a fan of voting non-participators this early, but if we have to we have to i guess. So my problem here is that this basically amounts to a I got nothing and am not usually one to charge after finding someone but more a sit back and react if something good presents itself. Maybe it is just me but something really does not sit right with that. I mean as town we shold all be actively taking charge and hunting scum, not sitting back and waiting for them to say "Hey I am scum." This first part I will give you is explaining your self and fine fair enough but the seconed paragraph just seems like an attempt to post for the sake of posting. I mean you do not feel inclined to vote pleo and use as part of not voting that "he has said all he is likely to say about it." Yet as I have said...maybe I missed something but I do not think even still he has actually adressed any of it. So how can a reason to not vote be that he explained, when he has not. Plus there seems like not really that big of an attempt to try and find someone else to vote for. So to me this just really seems not right. Therefore I am voting you. Just get a ping from the lack of any real substance and no vote yesterday.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 19:58:58 GMT -5
Post by special on Apr 7, 2010 19:58:58 GMT -5
Hey everyone, Well that sucks about loosing peeker While unless there is a counter claim, I am going to assume for now Ed is the other mason. As for those that did not vote yesterday i am going to: Vote Nanook This is cause first no vote. And I have said before and will again to me by not voting you are essentially not taking part in the one true power the town has. Yes it can be swayed but at the end of the day voting is what this game is all about and by not voting you are essentially not participating the most important part. I do understand certain circumstances but coupled with a few other pings, makes me vote you. Seconed he only posted twice yesterday and while that is nothing by itself, what gets me suspicious is his seconed post, which to me almost seems like a post for the sake of posting. Here: At the time I made the comment regarding a name claim, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that this game was drawing, not from the whole of wrestling, but from a specific, limited time frame. Sure, people still changed sides some even if you limit when you're drawing on, but less so than other a longer period. However, since Idle has since implied at least that he drew on the larger WWE history, then my opinion on the name claim has changed some. This is turning into a rough game for me. I'm more of a reactive player, not usually one to lead the charge. But right now there's nothing to react to. Pleo's vanilla claim? I don't think I'm willing to vote him for it right now, and it seems likely he's said all he's going to say about it at this time. I'm not a fan of voting non-participators this early, but if we have to we have to i guess. So my problem here is that this basically amounts to a I got nothing and am not usually one to charge after finding someone but more a sit back and react if something good presents itself. Maybe it is just me but something really does not sit right with that. I mean as town we shold all be actively taking charge and hunting scum, not sitting back and waiting for them to say "Hey I am scum." This first part I will give you is explaining your self and fine fair enough but the seconed paragraph just seems like an attempt to post for the sake of posting. I mean you do not feel inclined to vote pleo and use as part of not voting that "he has said all he is likely to say about it." Yet as I have said...maybe I missed something but I do not think even still he has actually adressed any of it. So how can a reason to not vote be that he explained, when he has not. Plus there seems like not really that big of an attempt to try and find someone else to vote for. So to me this just really seems not right. Therefore I am voting you. Just get a ping from the lack of any real substance and no vote yesterday. This seems reasonable. Have anything to say Nanook?
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 7, 2010 23:35:51 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 7, 2010 23:35:51 GMT -5
There must be something about my writing style-you thought I was scum in the Bastard Giraffe game, and you were wrong there, too. Maybe. I used to have a problem with always being wrong about cookies because something about her posts always hit me wrong, so I won't say it hasn't happened before. Still, a lot of how I play is by listening to my gut and then going back and trying to figure out what I was picking up on. You pinged me with that post and I think my reasoning holds up even with your explanation. I am going to read through Day 1 again tomorrow with a clearer head. Work has slowed down again so I should have some time to spend with the game and stop going so much by gut reactions.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 3:15:07 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on Apr 8, 2010 3:15:07 GMT -5
Looks like you listed Ed twice, Pleo. And in case it is frowned upon to point out errors in other players posts without commenting otherwise about the game, I'll just say again that the moderator response angle continues to make no reasonable sense to me. It is also having the effect of tainting any case that I read that includes it, even if the rest of the case might have merit. I think it is a toxic rationale that, if it is continues, I'm likely to consider anti-town. Giving your reasons why it is 'toxic' would be pro-town. Just saying you don't like it with an ominous threat of votes to come (I assume you do vote for what you consider anti-town) is something I consider anti-town. You pinged me with this post.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 10:02:53 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 8, 2010 10:02:53 GMT -5
All right.
I'm still not quite caught up on yesterDay (We are not a publishing house. Why am I responsible for laying out three publications?) but I'm also bothered by nanook's play.
Vote: vote: Nanook
And Pleo? Horseshit. I can make any damn argument that seems to fit.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 10:33:03 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Apr 8, 2010 10:33:03 GMT -5
Okay, I listed Ed twice, but I can't get an accurate vote count until there's an accurate player list. I'm still not quite caught up on yesterDay (We are not a publishing house. Why am I responsible for laying out three publications?) but I'm also bothered by nanook's play. And Pleo? Horseshit. I can make any damn argument that seems to fit. Yes, you can, and you can get my vote for doing it, too. And I'll note that you still have not made a case for anyone, but are simply following a case okay'd by our presumed mason. But thank you for at least voting.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 11:08:56 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 8, 2010 11:08:56 GMT -5
Looks like you listed Ed twice, Pleo. And in case it is frowned upon to point out errors in other players posts without commenting otherwise about the game, I'll just say again that the moderator response angle continues to make no reasonable sense to me. It is also having the effect of tainting any case that I read that includes it, even if the rest of the case might have merit. I think it is a toxic rationale that, if it is continues, I'm likely to consider anti-town. Giving your reasons why it is 'toxic' would be pro-town. Just saying you don't like it with an ominous threat of votes to come (I assume you do vote for what you consider anti-town) is something I consider anti-town. You pinged me with this post. Yeah, apparently if I open my mouth someone somewhere gets ping'd. 1) False positive rate. Already stated this a few times. 2) It results in playing against the player's schedule, surfing habits, etc., instead of the player. Already stated this a few times too. 3) If someone was trying to 'get away with' lack of participation or reading without contributing, do you really think they're going to forget that they are doing that just to come in and chat with Idle about how the board is working? First time I've mentioned this, but certainly relevant. 4) Based on how this game is going, I'm fairly sure that many more people other than just Dorian, Sister, and myself have exhibited this reading-but-not-posting behavior. I don't have concrete evidence of this, it is just my humble opinion. 1.1) Day 1 was extremely quiet and I check the games I play in fairly compulsively through the day. This 'policy' in a low participation game is going to have more of an impact on players like me than players with other habits. Compulsive checking of games is not necessarily the behavior of scum, but it is the behavior of an addict. We all share responsibility for the lack of participation level. People who check more often do not carry more of that responsibility than people who only show up once a day.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 14:39:52 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 14:39:52 GMT -5
Ok, I have re-read and have been thinking about Shaggy's case against Nanook. I have two thoughts.
1) It's a stronger case than the one I presented against Fisheroo. 2) Nanook claims that he is a reactive player. I feel like I am a fairly reactive player myself. The difference is, when there is nothing to react to I try to create situations where people are forced to participate. I like to call it blowing things up. Right now I don't have a lot to use to blow stuff up, but I can help a wagon get going and see what happens.
Unvote: fisheroo
Vote: Nanook
On the strength of the case Shaggy presented which displays many of the same characteristics of scum tell that I voted fisheroo for, as well as an attempt to see what people will do when nanook starts collecting some votes.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 14:40:35 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 14:40:35 GMT -5
BTW that makes three on nanook by my count. Time to come out and play nanook.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 14:57:58 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Apr 8, 2010 14:57:58 GMT -5
I think people are misinterpeting my reactive comment. It does not mean I'm strictly a bandwagon person, nor does it mean I won't ever start a case against someone. It does mean I generally won't stir up shit just for the sake of seeing what happens, as NAF states he does. On Day 1, there was nothing to react to, and you all know this perfectly well. 4 pages for the entire Day? That's my point. I don't post shit just for the sake of posting shit as Shaggy accuses me of doing. If I did that, I wouldn't consistently be one of the lower volume posters. You won't ever find me coming in here to post worthless post count++ things like "Oh so busy, going to do a reread, will get back to you" that I see lots of people doing on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 15:47:53 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 15:47:53 GMT -5
I think people are misinterpeting my reactive comment. It does not mean I'm strictly a bandwagon person, nor does it mean I won't ever start a case against someone. It does mean I generally won't stir up shit just for the sake of seeing what happens, as NAF states he does. On Day 1, there was nothing to react to, and you all know this perfectly well. 4 pages for the entire Day? That's my point. I don't post shit just for the sake of posting shit as Shaggy accuses me of doing. If I did that, I wouldn't consistently be one of the lower volume posters. You won't ever find me coming in here to post worthless post count++ things like "Oh so busy, going to do a reread, will get back to you" that I see lots of people doing on a regular basis. OK, fair enough. You don't want to post for no reason. Question, if everyone decides not to post anything for a whole Day what is the best course of action for a dedicated townie? I would say that the best course of action is not to be silent and wait for something to happen. That question isn't directed at only you, mind you, but you are the person taking their turn in the spotlight, and you didn't vote.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:00:52 GMT -5
Post by DorianPhoenix on Apr 8, 2010 16:00:52 GMT -5
Well, the Nanook voting feels bandwagony but yet I agree with it to a certain degree and Nanook's defense of (summarized) "you guys misunderstood me and I am not going to post for no reason" isn't wholly satisfying. So I'm currently conflicted on whether or not to vote Nanook but another candidate isn't leaping to the forefront.
Was that enough of a substantive check-in, have I fulfilled my post requirement? I caught up, so I posted even though my thoughts hadn't progressed much yet, that's what you want right?
Douche's.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:25:44 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 8, 2010 16:25:44 GMT -5
I shall volunteer my answer.
Try not to get too defensive if you happen to be on the receiving end of people scraping the bottom of the Barrel of Rationalization, while still trying to determine if there are signs that one of your naysayers has dark motives behind their actions.
Remind people that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Continue reaching into the barrel myself until I find enough to put down a vote.
Volunteer answers to questions shouted at the ether by a man in a checkered red bathrobe.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:27:09 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 8, 2010 16:27:09 GMT -5
NETA: In case that's not clear, I was responding to NAF's "Question, if everyone decides not to post anything for a whole Day what is the best course of action for a dedicated townie?"
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:35:38 GMT -5
Post by DorianPhoenix on Apr 8, 2010 16:35:38 GMT -5
Try not to get too defensive if you happen to be on the receiving end of people scraping the bottom of the Barrel of Rationalization. Fine fine, I'll stop calling people douche. Even though it's somewhat cathartic.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:38:36 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 16:38:36 GMT -5
Volunteer answers to questions shouted at the ether by a man in a checkered red bathrobe. Don't forget the fish in my ear. I think yours is a good answer Cookies, for what it's worth. In an attempt to continue to scrape said bottom of the barrel, I am not thrilled with Dorian's last post but that might just be because he called us all douche's. Or it could be that him calling us douches is an attempt to seem more frustrated than he really is because frustrated folks look townie. It's something I know I have done in the past.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 16:43:20 GMT -5
Post by DorianPhoenix on Apr 8, 2010 16:43:20 GMT -5
Well, when I was basically told by Luv that saying something is better than saying nothing, I decided to be a snarky bastard about it and say what I was thinking. I read, and posted something of little substance as opposed to waiting and thinking on it. Because when I waited a whopping three hours, I got two votes. So yeah, I was irritated and wanted to display how dumb and unproductive some posts look when people don't take the time to think out a coherent stance.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 17:06:13 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Apr 8, 2010 17:06:13 GMT -5
Nanook - 3 (Shaggy, SisterCoyote, NAF) Dorian - 1 (luv) SisterCoyote - 1 (Pleonast)
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 17:53:31 GMT -5
Post by fisheroo on Apr 8, 2010 17:53:31 GMT -5
For my contribution of a completely non-substantive post, there is no apostrophe in douches and I lost my end of day countdown clock. Can I have it back, please?
::Back to my regularly scheduled not signed in periodic lurking but not scum but I don't want to have to justify my every refresh button behavior mode::
(Man, this crowd is tough)
F5F5F5F5F5
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 18:37:21 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 18:37:21 GMT -5
Ain't it the way. Work finally slows down enough for me to actually spend some time playing mafia, and I am the only one (well one of the few) hanging out posting?
Does anyone care that it looks like Nanook is going to be lynched tomorrow?
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 18:43:21 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 18:43:21 GMT -5
Wow, my punctuation in that last post made no sense. Sorry.
But honestly...there are 5 votes on the table with less than 24 hours left in the Day.
Is anyone actually playing this game?
Could I maybe get a rolecall of players dropping by to say
"Hi, I'm still in the game but I am not posting or voting for whatever reason"
Idle, could you please remove anyone who does not post something to that effect before the end of the Day?
We have 8 players with 4 posts or less in the Day so far and something like 10 (depending on what Idle says about the player list) with no vote at all.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 18:48:52 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 8, 2010 18:48:52 GMT -5
Another thought. We could all try and figure out why Peek was killed last Night. I know it's something we don't nomally do much of, but Normal Phase made a decent argument in the Forbidden Thread for the SDMB game that it isn't something that should just be discounted. I made a counter argument that it wasn't the most fruitful of avenues to pursue, but at the moment I would rather see some conversation, any conversation, over no conversation.
So, why peek?
Anyone got a theory? I would post one, but at the moment I am one of the only people who is actually talking so...I figure I will give someone else a shot at saying something. Or you could do like Cookies and answer my other question about what a good townie should do when they are confronted with a game that won't talk. Because right now I am running out of ideas.
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 18:56:54 GMT -5
Post by special on Apr 8, 2010 18:56:54 GMT -5
Wow, my punctuation in that last post made no sense. Sorry. But honestly...there are 5 votes on the table with less than 24 hours left in the Day. Is anyone actually playing this game? Could I maybe get a rolecall of players dropping by to say "Hi, I'm still in the game but I am not posting or voting for whatever reason" Idle, could you please remove anyone who does not post something to that effect before the end of the Day? We have 8 players with 4 posts or less in the Day so far and something like 10 (depending on what Idle says about the player list) with no vote at all. I am attempting to play a different game. I stated as much when I signed up. I didn't want this to be another Day 1 where Ed gets into it with someone and causes a debacle or near debacle. Though, my style of play is to poke and prod people (and even if I agree with them, I'll sometimes try to see if I can't get some sort of reaction out of them) I do like the Nanook case (I said as much before Sister jumped on the bandwagon followed by NAF) I find that interesting if not particularly useful. I'm prepared to vote that way, though Sister still pings me as does Pleo (was that this game where he claimed Vanilla)
|
|
|
Day 2.
Apr 8, 2010 19:13:31 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 8, 2010 19:13:31 GMT -5
I'm putting my Vote back on Pleo[/color]. No amount of mystery or intrigue or wtfyness has been removed from his Day 1 claim, and his vote justification today has my pet peeve du jour parked in the middle of it.
|
|