|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:04:33 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 15:04:33 GMT -5
A side note and a question for moley: How does aggressiveness equate to knowing who's on my side and who's not? You've tossed this out there as a truth, but I don't see it. If you're referring to my statement that I don't think you're likely to be on the same side as Sach, it's because you attacked his point in a way that didn't "feel" like distancing. It's not a definite "truth" but it's something I think is most likely true. With regard to Eureka using your phrasing - he seemed to take on board what you'd said (which obviously I disagree with) and credit it to Sachertorte. He didn't make any mention of you. I can easily credit two people making the same mistake with regards to an ambiguous-looking post, but for the second person to use similar phrasing to the first and then not even mention that it's not their idea... seems odd. Add that to the two "scumtells" I mentioned and I think there's a solid case for Eureka not being town based on that post. Do I think there's a solid case for you not being town, Red? Nope. The Sachertorte thing could be a mis-read / interpritation, and the Eureka thing could apply regardless of your alignment (although it's also true that he might want to avoid drawing attention to the two of you. Can't say whether or not this is the case... yet.) So I guess what I'm saying is I'm not voting for you, but I'm watching you close. Real close. Like a hawk. With freakin' binoculars. Ahem... anyway... Your point regarding Sach's "message" has already been answered by Sach himself I think. Also - reading a post in the "rules" thread that I seem to have missed earlier on - I take it Hoopy's just there to balance up the numbers of zombies (plus lurk around and mumble "BRAINS" a lot). Bufftabby - I mean that in this game "town" seems to be a misnomer, since a certain level of cooperation between opposing "sides" seems fairly inevitable at some point. If Idle's post is accurate (and despite the low number of Cabal I'd lean towards it being so, at least regarding roles, if only because it's so easy for someone to disprove it if he's wrong) then there are twelve scum, plus a potential "recruiter" in the necromancer. That's almost as many scum as there are town. That in itself seems to me to undermine the idea of "informed minority vs ignorant majority". What I mean is that opposing scum teams tend to negate many of the conventional town strategies. It might be to both the town and one scum team's best interests to work together temporarily to help get rid of another scum team or two, if the team they're getting rid of is a bigger threat to both sides. The fact that the scum teams have different wincons just confuses things even more.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:05:02 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 15:05:02 GMT -5
Do you think that's a scummy statement? vote: bufftabbyMoley's wrong, but the potential scum motivation for such a comment is so lacking that it seems you are just trying to provoke a suspicious-looking response. Particularly given the pre-existing challenge from Red Skeezix. Well, that vote came out of nowhere. So if someone asks someone else for clarification, they automatically think that person is scummy? And how do you know if the response is going to be suspicious-looking? Frankly, I was about to ask the same question because it is a curious statement. Depending on the answer, I'm not sure if it's scummy yet, though.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:07:09 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 15:07:09 GMT -5
Do you think that's a scummy statement? vote: bufftabby[/color] Moley's wrong, but the potential scum motivation for such a comment is so lacking that it seems you are just trying to provoke a suspicious-looking response. Particularly given the pre-existing challenge from Red Skeezix.[/quote] Eh? Explain please. Not the bit about my being wrong (I've already gone into that in more detail in the post just above this one) but why is Bufftabby asking for clarification of a point of mine supposed to be scummy?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:08:45 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 15:08:45 GMT -5
Do you think that's a scummy statement? vote: bufftabbyMoley's wrong, but the potential scum motivation for such a comment is so lacking that it seems you are just trying to provoke a suspicious-looking response. Particularly given the pre-existing challenge from Red Skeezix. Well, that vote came out of nowhere. So if someone asks someone else for clarification, they automatically think that person is scummy? And how do you know if the response is going to be suspicious-looking? Frankly, I was about to ask the same question because it is a curious statement. Depending on the answer, I'm not sure if it's scummy yet, though. Dammit ninja'd. Talking of which, this game has zombies, necromancers, cabals, witches, werewolves, warlocks, vampires, and probably the odd pirate or two. Why no ninjas?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:23:52 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 15:23:52 GMT -5
<snip> Third thought: If Idle's list is accurate, there will most likely have to be temporary alliances between wolves, undead, cabal and townies, in order to get rid of the biggest threat to the lesser groups at the time. <snip> How do you suppose these alliances would work? Why would we believe anything anyone said about what faction they were to begin with?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:26:53 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 15:26:53 GMT -5
@ Honest Moley I see your explanation above about the alliances which I guess sort of makes sense but again, it seems there is an assumption that non-town are going to tell the truth about their faction which seems impractical.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:34:52 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 15:34:52 GMT -5
@ Honest Moley I see your explanation above about the alliances which I guess sort of makes sense but again, it seems there is an assumption that non-town are going to tell the truth about their faction which seems impractical. The last game I was in with opposing scum factions, two exposed scum both agreed to work with the town to target the other larger scum faction. It happens.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:47:10 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 15:47:10 GMT -5
Yes I understand what you are saying but why you are using this fora to say that is beyond me. What you are saying is that if the information you've compiled correctly indicates a scum player, then Pleo or other moderators in future games might be more reticent in taking requests or publishing requests (or they might be more reticent since the possibility exists for this type of reasoning regardless of if it produces results or not). This is a message. The addressee is Pleo and future moderators, the text of message is "Don't take requests anymore, it leads to metagaming (and conversations with red, which are frustrating for anyone who has tried)." You specifically objected to lynching to send a message: Sach, that is an interesting plan you've made there. Interesting because not only are you suggesting that we lynch for meta reasons, but that we lynch to send a message to the moderator, as opposed to ya know, making any attempt to progress towards winning this game, or at the very least providing a framework which will hint at motives of other players, so that we can be better informed toMorrow. Red, you are wildly inconsistent in your position. I'm not being inconsistent, you are conflating two discrete points that I have made this game. 1. I object to lynching a player to send a message, which is how I interpreted your original plan. You have since clarified and chastised me a bit (which is perhaps justifiable, since I was being aggressive in my reading of your play). 2. I have pointed out that you were intending to send a message, in the hopes of demonstrating that it's possible for two people to pick up on it without it indicating that they are on the same team.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:50:45 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 15:50:45 GMT -5
@ Honest Moley I see your explanation above about the alliances which I guess sort of makes sense but again, it seems there is an assumption that non-town are going to tell the truth about their faction which seems impractical. The last game I was in with opposing scum factions, two exposed scum both agreed to work with the town to target the other larger scum faction. It happens. There is mild evidence of this happening in previous Conspiracy games, for example in a previous game a wolf was not lynched in an effort to prevent the Cabal from furthering their win condition.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 15:53:04 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 21, 2010 15:53:04 GMT -5
Stan: Repeated? I didn't even say it once. What I did say, to Ed, was just to ask himself if he's on it...not say it out loud. Well, I admit that I read this as role-fishing when in fact you might just be asking for a moment of quiet contemplation: Of course, you can always question my being honest, but before you do that, look over the list and see if, whatever you are, is on it. but I struggle to see how this is anything other than double-dog daring anyone not on your list to step forward: Just ask yourself this, Ed...is what you are on the list I posted? If so, that's one. Certainly doesn't DISprove it. I actually want someone to say they're a role not on my posted list...because then we'd (well, I'd) know who was a liar.The thing is, I really want to believe Idle's list. If we can put full faith in it, then it pretty much calls a halt to false role-claims. Any claim would have to be from the list, and then it would be reasonably straightforward to work out where the numbers don't add up. But that's only if we fully trust the list. Even granting sach's point that even a fake list would be mainly correct (which I think is right), that "mainly" leaves a lot of wiggle room for someone to hide, or for us to be tricked into mislynching. So like I say, I really want to trust the list. And when Idle blatantly misrepresents what he's been saying about people coming forward, I get suspicious. On the other hand, his confidence in daring people to step up does make me think that he's at least got the roles correct, if not the counts. Because trading a Day One lynch to find out about one role does seem like a big gambit. The upshot is, I want more info on Idle. We could get that from a lynch, but there are other ways too. I don't want to lynch purely for info (especially as we might not get the info for quite some time), so I'm going to look elsewhere.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 16:22:23 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 16:22:23 GMT -5
I'm not being inconsistent, you are conflating two discrete points that I have made this game. Perhaps there are two discrete points in your head, but your posts do not effectively distinguish these alleged points. Does anyone understand this sentence? What message was I trying to send? Since I'm me, I think I would be aware of any message sending on my part. Even if I did "send a message," who cares? Why does it matter? Who are these two people to which you refer? You are exceedingly confusing today.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 16:30:10 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 21, 2010 16:30:10 GMT -5
GOD I hate this board.
To repeat what I just tried to say about my vote on bufftabby and lost --
Challenging an oddball but not actually scummy comment with the intent to follow it up with a vote later if the response gives any possible opening is a common scum tactic. Given that Moley's comment about "there is no town" lacks any discernable scum motivation (scum are, if anything, not so much inclined to make themselves noticeable with such off-the-wall comments), it fits the profile as the sort of comment that scum like to jump on out of proportion to their numbers. Add that Moley had just a few posts previously been called out as smearing Red Skeezix (and challenged by Red Skeezix on a separate issue to boot), he was also a wounded target -- the best scumbait so far this game, regardless of his own allegiance.
Bufftabby took the bait, and I'd like her to say what she intended with doing so. Did she actually think that comment was scummy? If so, why? If she didn't, what was she looking for Moley to say?
On Idle -- I agree with whoever said the list is probably close to accurate regardless if Idle is scum or not (which in turn implies that he does have such a list; he isn't lying whole-sale). If he is, the question will then be what he was trying to accomplish with it and what the deceptions might be, if any. If he's not, moot point. I very much doubt Pleo would lie to a player -- not his style.
However, I disagree with storyteller that the list is necessarily a secret power, because it's not a "power" at all. It's information. The rules would seem to allow such a loophole, if you look at them.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 16:40:59 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 16:40:59 GMT -5
However, I disagree with storyteller that the list is necessarily a secret power, because it's not a "power" at all. It's information. The rules would seem to allow such a loophole, if you look at them. From C3: "You are a Witchdoctor, a member of the Town. Each Night you may enchant one player (including yourself) who, if killed that Night only, will come back from the dead the morning after the next Night (i.e., when their faction would normally be revealed). Once activated, this enchantment cannot be blocked. Each player may only be saved this way once. The player who is killed and comes back will know the identity of their killer. Witchdoctor Secret Power: One time only, you may choose to resurrect a player who has been dead less than one Day-Night cycle (that is, before their faction is publicly revealed by the moderator) instead of your usual Night power. Furthermore, if you have not used this power before your death, you will automatically use it on yourself when you die." "You are a Cabalist, a member of the Cabal. The other Cabalists are NAF, Boozy Squid, MHaye. You may talk secretly among yourselves, Day or Night, whether alive or dead (see details below). The Cabal may choose to block the actions of one player each Night. The decision must be without dissent. This will prevent the use of the targeted player's powers that Night and stop any attacks they may attempt. Witches are immune to being blocked and your power is ineffective against secret powers. Cabalist Secret Power: One time only, Day or Night, you may choose to redirect another player's target to a target of your choosing. Neither player will be aware of the switch. If the player you redirect is a Witch, your power will fail but you will be informed that it failed. (Yes, this can be used as a one-shot Witch detector.) Each Cabalist may use this power once." "You are the Alpha Wolf, a member of the Wolves. The other Wolves are Cookies, bufftabby, paulwhois, Meeko. You lead the Wolves. Each Night, the Wolves may secretly discuss strategy (see details below). Collectively, you may choose a victim to kill and a Wolf to do it. If the Wolves do not reach a majority decision in either choosing a victim or the attacker, the blocs with the Alpha Wolf prevail. There is no more than one Alpha Wolf at any given time. Alpha Wolf Secret Power: One time only, when you perform the Wolves Nightly kill, you may choose to mystically eat the heart of your victim. You will gain all the non-secret powers of your target's role. This power will fail if you fail to make the kill or if your target was a Freemason. If the power fails, you will not lose it and will be able to use it again. If you successfully steal the powers from a Witch, you won't actually gain their powers, but instead gain knowledge of all their past and present actions (not their identities). This power cannot be inherited." "You are a Vampire, a member of the Undead. Each Night you may kill one player. If the target is a Vicar, your attack will fail, but you will not know why. Vampires are immune to being killed at Night, except by a Vigilante. Anyone else who attempts to kill you at Night will instead be killed; you will know if this happens. Vampires are immune to a Detective's investigative power. Vampire Secret Power: You know that Mister Blockey is a Necromancer." (1) The secret power can be information (see vampire). (2) The secret power has historically been labeled as such.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 16:43:49 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 16:43:49 GMT -5
GOD I hate this board. To repeat what I just tried to say about my vote on bufftabby and lost -- Challenging an oddball but not actually scummy comment with the intent to follow it up with a vote later if the response gives any possible opening is a common scum tactic. Given that Moley's comment about "there is no town" lacks any discernable scum motivation (scum are, if anything, not so much inclined to make themselves noticeable with such off-the-wall comments), it fits the profile as the sort of comment that scum like to jump on out of proportion to their numbers. Add that Moley had just a few posts previously been called out as smearing Red Skeezix (and challenged by Red Skeezix on a separate issue to boot), he was also a wounded target -- the best scumbait so far this game, regardless of his own allegiance. Bufftabby took the bait, and I'd like her to say what she intended with doing so. Did she actually think that comment was scummy? If so, why? If she didn't, what was she looking for Moley to say? On Idle -- I agree with whoever said the list is probably close to accurate regardless if Idle is scum or not (which in turn implies that he does have such a list; he isn't lying whole-sale). If he is, the question will then be what he was trying to accomplish with it and what the deceptions might be, if any. If he's not, moot point. I very much doubt Pleo would lie to a player -- not his style. However, I disagree with storyteller that the list is necessarily a secret power, because it's not a "power" at all. It's information. The rules would seem to allow such a loophole, if you look at them. This is really lame. You are basically ascribing motivations to buff's question that you cannot know, and what it looks like is you blowing a single question out of proportion in order to justify a lame vote. The whole point of mafia is to ask people questions about what they are posting. This really bothers me because you are basically threatening to vote for anyone who asks a question. vote nphase
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 16:48:20 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 16:48:20 GMT -5
I'm not being inconsistent, you are conflating two discrete points that I have made this game. Perhaps there are two discrete points in your head, but your posts do not effectively distinguish these alleged points. Does anyone understand this sentence? What message was I trying to send? Since I'm me, I think I would be aware of any message sending on my part. Even if I did "send a message," who cares? Why does it matter? Who are these two people to which you refer? You are exceedingly confusing today. I think the "message" is that the mods shouldn't post information that would affect a future game. I don't know if Red is talking about two specific people or generic people but I think his point is that it's very likely for many people to make the same inference because it seemed pretty obvious in your post and that does not mean that they are on the same team. I also agree that you did seem to be saying you wanted to send a message about metagame information.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 17:08:12 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 21, 2010 17:08:12 GMT -5
Bufftabby - I mean that in this game "town" seems to be a misnomer, since a certain level of cooperation between opposing "sides" seems fairly inevitable at some point. If Idle's post is accurate (and despite the low number of Cabal I'd lean towards it being so, at least regarding roles, if only because it's so easy for someone to disprove it if he's wrong) then there are twelve scum, plus a potential "recruiter" in the necromancer. That's almost as many scum as there are town. That in itself seems to me to undermine the idea of "informed minority vs ignorant majority". What I mean is that opposing scum teams tend to negate many of the conventional town strategies. It might be to both the town and one scum team's best interests to work together temporarily to help get rid of another scum team or two, if the team they're getting rid of is a bigger threat to both sides. The fact that the scum teams have different wincons just confuses things even more. Thanks, that makes sense. I assumed it was unlikely you were being literal, but wasn't sure what you did mean.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 17:17:08 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 21, 2010 17:17:08 GMT -5
Eh. It's still a mess. If the "message" was that I don't think posting the preferences was a good idea, then that was a "message" already sent. I was pretty explicit in my opinion. Yet Red's second distinct point is, "you [sachertorte] were intending to send a message." Intending. As in, hasn't happened yet. The accusation was that lynching based on this somehow is the mechanism for "sending a message," which, as I've stated, is ridiculous and unnecessary. But Red insists that is a different point entirely(point #1 of his post). What does it matter if I express my opinion about metagame information? How is this even relevant?No, the distinguishing characteristic is wrongly assuming that lynching based on the preference information was desired and necessary to prove a point. Red said it. Eureka said it. I'm much less ok with voting for someone in an effort to send a message to the moderator--if you don't like the way the moderator is setting up the game, just don't play it (don't sign up for it). All the hand waving about "you were sending a message" is a distraction from the fact that both Red and eureka made the same misinterpretation. It is possible that they made the same mistake independently, but it is also possible that there is a relationship (which is Moley's point). I would guess that Eureka read Red's post and took the accusation from there. Normally I wouldn't put much stock into the relationship accusation, but the reaction to the accusation makes me believe the accusation more.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 17:18:56 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 21, 2010 17:18:56 GMT -5
1. Does anyone understand this sentence? 2. What message was I trying to send? Since I'm me, I think I would be aware of any message sending on my part. 3. Even if I did "send a message," who cares? Why does it matter? 4. Who are these two people to which you refer? You are exceedingly confusing today. (numbers added for reference purposes. Not on purpose, I swear. Answers to questions (I'm feeling too lazy to break up the quote right now.) 1. I don't even understand that sentence and I wrote it. 2. You don't like the requesting of roles or the disclosing of requests, i'm not quite sure but it's one of these two things or both. 3. Moley cares, he was using both mine and eureka's pointing it out to draw a connection between the two of us. A point which I disagree with. Note: When I originally made that second point, I was responding to moley. Not that I would insist that no one else responds, but the points I was making were including moley's post in the relevant context. 4. Myself and Eureka.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 18:08:39 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 21, 2010 18:08:39 GMT -5
I'm worried by his repeated requests for people not on the list to come forward. It's blatant role-fishing. But what's really interesting is the roles that are missing from the list - Magician, Warlock, Witchdoctor and Vig. These are essentially who Idle is asking to come forward and identify themselves. If there's a Vig, (s)he now knows that Idle is lying. I would imagine that's a situation that will resolve itself at some point in the near-to-middle future without our collective involvement. A Magician should definitely come forward, because (s)he will be able to identify a Scum, which is really the purpose of his/her power in the first place. If Idle is making this up, he is taking a huge risk for virtually no gain whatsoever. Idle's smart and he understands the game very well; I kind of doubt that he's lying. That doesn't mean he's Town. I disagree with those who are saying that if Idle is telling the truth, that this information is not necessarily the "secret power" (or at least, part of the secret power) for his faction. The rules are crystal clear in referring to this as an open game, with a single exception per side. It was not revealed in the rule-set that someone would know the composition of the roles; this was therefore not open to the rest of us. Because Pleonast has explicitly stated that the only exception to the open setup is the secret power, this information (if true) is surely the secret power for Idle's faction. But information like this could be very useful for Cabalist, Wolf, or Walking Dead, as much as for Town. So we really don't know much more about Idle than we did when we started. The solution to that is to simply avoid making any decisions on the basis of Idle's list unless and until Idle is no longer with us and is confirmed as Town. If he dies and is anything but Town, the list goes into the trash can. As long as he's alive, the list is a useful tool, but not definitive in any way.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 18:18:31 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 21, 2010 18:18:31 GMT -5
@ Kat, I do find it odd that your comment on sachertorte's idea is to defend the 3 of us he identified. it causes me concern that maybe he's identified either a fellow Wolf, a fellow Undead, a fellow Cabalist, a fellow freemason, or a fellow Witch (did I get them all?) If that's how you interpreted that post, I have to apologize. I was absolutely not trying to defend anyone, I was poking holes in sach's proposed strategy and demonstrating why his conclusions may not be very reliable. I am not a wolf, an undead or a cabalist. If you think I'm going to comment one way or the other on the rest, you're nuts.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 18:29:49 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 21, 2010 18:29:49 GMT -5
(Not directed at sach, in particular, but an observation) Also, the "It's better than random/nothing" meme about day one voting should probably die. It's an obvious statement, that truly says nothing, and sounds a lot like "I don't know who to vote for". If you are voting for someone and "it's better than random" is your only (relative) justfication, then you aren't trying hard enough or there haven't been any non fluff posts all day. Plus if you're town you've just opened the door for an opportunistic and easily justified vote from a scum player. Just in case you were lumping me in with that group, I didn't say it was better than random, I said it was no worse than random. I don't believe that actually implementing sach's approach is better than random: It doesn't have a better shot at hitting scum, nor would it give us any more information about the voters than a random vote. The suggestion itself might give us some information about sach when looked back on later in the game, but that's about it. In and of itself, I have a neutral view on sach bringing it up.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 18:34:48 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 21, 2010 18:34:48 GMT -5
My guess is that Idle Thoughts did get the PM (or somehow deduced the probable composition from some other source), but made one or two "invisible" changes for his own benefit. For example the correct list might be his posted list with one Town role changed to Cabalist.Underlining mine. I found this example somewhat curious. Why did you select that as your example? Do you think that particular example is likely?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 18:56:23 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jul 21, 2010 18:56:23 GMT -5
I was hoping nphase would comment on my vote before I left but maybe not. As I posted in the going away thread, I will be out of town and offline for a few days. So unless I have a heart attack or fall off the Golden Gate Bridge during my marathon, I will be back on Tuesday morning.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 19:52:13 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 21, 2010 19:52:13 GMT -5
I am beginning to share nphase's frustration at this board. How is it, when three people have been anxious to pick apart the specifics of a few phrases in my post, nobody's commented on what I've actually said. To paraphrase:
- Eureka makes two points, and then promptly provides evidence against both. Fence-sitting under these circumstances / trying not to burn bridges = scumtell.
- Eureka took Sachertorte's post regarding how previous Conspiracy players might be viewed, and then applied it to himself, someone who hasn't played a previous game. Worrying how you're viewed when nobody's even mentioned you as a suspect = BLATANT scumtell.
I don't think I'm exaggerating here when I say that this is the clearest case of scum giving themselves away that I've seen on this board since DarthSensitive decided to vote for a mason whose role and alignment had been confirmed by two dead townies in "Arkham Nights". Why is everyone not voting for Eureka?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:05:24 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 21, 2010 20:05:24 GMT -5
GOD I hate this board. To repeat what I just tried to say about my vote on bufftabby and lost -- Challenging an oddball but not actually scummy comment with the intent to follow it up with a vote later if the response gives any possible opening is a common scum tactic. Given that Moley's comment about "there is no town" lacks any discernable scum motivation (scum are, if anything, not so much inclined to make themselves noticeable with such off-the-wall comments), it fits the profile as the sort of comment that scum like to jump on out of proportion to their numbers. Add that Moley had just a few posts previously been called out as smearing Red Skeezix (and challenged by Red Skeezix on a separate issue to boot), he was also a wounded target -- the best scumbait so far this game, regardless of his own allegiance. Bufftabby took the bait, and I'd like her to say what she intended with doing so. Did she actually think that comment was scummy? If so, why? If she didn't, what was she looking for Moley to say? On Idle -- I agree with whoever said the list is probably close to accurate regardless if Idle is scum or not (which in turn implies that he does have such a list; he isn't lying whole-sale). If he is, the question will then be what he was trying to accomplish with it and what the deceptions might be, if any. If he's not, moot point. I very much doubt Pleo would lie to a player -- not his style. However, I disagree with storyteller that the list is necessarily a secret power, because it's not a "power" at all. It's information. The rules would seem to allow such a loophole, if you look at them. This is really lame. You are basically ascribing motivations to buff's question that you cannot know, and what it looks like is you blowing a single question out of proportion in order to justify a lame vote. The whole point of mafia is to ask people questions about what they are posting. This really bothers me because you are basically threatening to vote for anyone who asks a question. vote nphaseNot even close. There is a certain type of question aimed at a certain type of comment that trips my scumdar. Not questions in general. @ Sach, about the Undead from last time out -- good point. @ Moley -- I wasn't commenting about the people but rather about the board. I had a post typed up, did something random, and it was gone. Every time I play a game here where I'm back and forth from post to post I wind up bashing my head against a wall. Malazan was so elsewhere-focused I had forgotten how much it drives me crazy.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:25:26 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 21, 2010 20:25:26 GMT -5
@ Kat, I do find it odd that your comment on sachertorte's idea is to defend the 3 of us he identified. it causes me concern that maybe he's identified either a fellow Wolf, a fellow Undead, a fellow Cabalist, a fellow freemason, or a fellow Witch (did I get them all?) If that's how you interpreted that post, I have to apologize. I was absolutely not trying to defend anyone, I was poking holes in sach's proposed strategy and demonstrating why his conclusions may not be very reliable. I am not a wolf, an undead or a cabalist. If you think I'm going to comment one way or the other on the rest, you're nuts. And if you thought I thought you were going to comment on that, you're nuts ;D I was only pointing out that a great many people should already know a great deal about a few other players.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:26:03 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 21, 2010 20:26:03 GMT -5
OK, if it makes you feel better, I'll comment. I am beginning to share nphase's frustration at this board. How is it, when three people have been anxious to pick apart the specifics of a few phrases in my post, nobody's commented on what I've actually said. To paraphrase: - Eureka makes two points, and then promptly provides evidence against both. Fence-sitting under these circumstances / trying not to burn bridges = scumtell. noticed and noted - Eureka took Sachertorte's post regarding how previous Conspiracy players might be viewed, and then applied it to himself, someone who hasn't played a previous game. Worrying how you're viewed when nobody's even mentioned you as a suspect = BLATANT scumtell.also noted. However, a slight disagreement. This is also a strong newbie tell. I don't think I'm exaggerating here when I say that this is the clearest case of scum giving themselves away that I've seen on this board since DarthSensitive decided to vote for a mason whose role and alignment had been confirmed by two dead townies in "Arkham Nights". Why is everyone not voting for Eureka? This is a 7 day Day. I, for one, am trying to play a more patient game than I usually do. I also don't see these as blatant Scum slips. Yes, not ideal play, and certainly a little self-centered and quite possibly Scum motivated, but also potentially Newbie moves caused by someone who trusts no one but themselves and is looking a little more at self-preservation at this point.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:33:05 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 21, 2010 20:33:05 GMT -5
Why is everyone not voting for Eureka? For myself, I was waiting to see a response from Eureka before I commented, because comments like that can be a newbie tell*, but I didn't want to post that until Eureka posted his explanation. Seeing as how Ed's posted that already, I feel free to say so, too. *Who was it who played their first game thinking they had to stay alive to win as Town, and thus played to personally stay alive?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:45:55 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 21, 2010 20:45:55 GMT -5
I think that was bear nenno, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 20:52:16 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 21, 2010 20:52:16 GMT -5
My thoughts: I'm OK with voting for someone on the grounds that they wanted to be Scum in a previous iteration of the game, although not keen on it both because what they wanted then may not be what they wanted now and because as someone with no history in this game, I'm a little leery of what message someone may decide my lack of history means. I'm much less ok with voting for someone in an effort to send a message to the moderator--if you don't like the way the moderator is setting up the game, just don't play it (don't sign up for it). I'm baffled as to why Idle Thoughts would have been given the extra information he claims he's been given. And I don't think it should be trusted. It makes no sense to me that the Cabal has only two members, unless Pleonast is trying to protect the Cabal from crosskills by reducing their numbers in advance. Seven werewolves is not an obviously excessive number, given the frequency with which werewolves end up dead. Here's a post that also interests me. So let's take it bit by bit... - First paragraph: you're ok with this plan, but then immediately propose two objections to it (the second of which has to do with how people view you directly)? - Second paragraph: where is Sach saying he wants to "send a message" by voting this way? He's objecting to the posting of players' past preferences, yes, but there's nothing overtly linking that to his suggestion of how to vote. Seems to me that what he's actually saying is that this kind of metagaming is a tool he'd prefer not to be available; but while it is available, he has to use it. Sach? Is that fair? - Third paragraph: I can think of several reasons why Idle might have been given the information, and at least two previous games in which someone has been given similar information on this very board. Not that you could be expected to know about previous games, but your statement there is pretty far-reaching. - Fourth paragraph: This one I partially agree with, to the extent that it's curious that there are only two members of the Cabal in Idle's post. But once again, you come up with an explanation yourself for it. Feels fence-sittingy. Plus, if you haven't played before or read the previous games, are you really in a position to judge how many Cabal is "reasonable"? This post feels scummy to me. Eureka seems to be suggesting direct suspicion / mistrust of Idle and Sachertorte for reasons that, aside from the "two cabalist" thing (which is genuinely curious, and does make the Cabalists look underpowered in relation to the rest), don't seem to stand up. He's also suggested that one of his reasons for disliking Sachertorte's suggestion is because of how he'd be viewed, as someone who hadn't played in a previous Conspiracy game. Whereas Sach hadn't actually said anything about how to view non-past players. That looks to me like Eureka is worried about how he'd be viewed himself - generally speaking, that's a scumtell, as town aren't as paranoid about being suspected unless they're actually accused. Finally, he's said he's ok with Sach's plan, but then given reasons why he's not; plus he's suggested Idle is wrong about the number of Cabal, and then given a reason why he might not be. In my experience scum don't like to cut potential ties early on, and often don't commit too much. Again, in my experience, it's a common scumtell. Right now I think it's likely that Eureka is a member of either the wolves or undead (he'd be less likely to discuss the numbers of cabal if he were one of them). I also think it unlikely, based on this post, that Idle and Sach are in the same group as Eureka is. I do however think it possible that Eureka is in the same group as Red is, because it was Red (not Sach) who made the suggestion that Sach wanted to "send a message", and Eureka seems to be accepting this without question or mention of Red himself. So for that reason, vote Eureka. I said I was OK with a plan to vote for someone based on their interest in previous games not because I intend to do so, but as a way of giving a sense of perspective--OK does not to me seem like a ringing endorsement, but it certainly isn't a condemnation. I failed to give Redcredit (or blame) because I was tired and didn't remember who had made the post which had put into words what had only been an instinctive dislike of the plan. If someone intended to use their vote to send a message to the moderator, I did not approve. Using information gleaned from previous games is possibly distasteful and certainly risky, but not something I'm prepared to disapprove of too strongly. Incidentally, I am female. I will try not to take male pronouns used generically to describe me personally, but right now the number of them in the post I am responding to is not making it easy to be reasonable. Also, I'm tired. I have read all three previous Conspiracy Games. 1 and 2 near real time, and 3 a couple of months ago. I've read a number of other Mafia games on either the Straight Dope or this board, although (excepting Conspiracy 3), nothing since Arkham Asylum. (My reading of Mafia games on the SDMB has been more erratic). I think a certain amount of ambivalence on Day One should be seen as normal behavior for a newbie, and if not, then normal behavior for ME, rather than automatically as scummy. Of course, the real world does not always behave as I wish it would, so why should I assume the world of Mafia would be different? I do not at this time assume that IdleThoughts or Sachertorte, or even you are scummy. But it's way too early in the game for me to be happy trusting anyone. And responding bit by bit to a post which deconstructed one of mine made me confused and cranky, so I gave up. Sorry. If you have specific questions for me, ask them and I'll try to answer them.
|
|