|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 21:13:39 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 21, 2010 21:13:39 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. Right. I read your original post as (possibly) suggesting lynching someone from a short list in order to send a message to a moderator. I disapprove of this idea. I'm not sure I had quite figured out what bothered me about your idea when I read Red's post. By the time I got around to posting ( at nearly my bedtime), I had forgotten who had helped clarify my thoughts. I assure you, reading Red's post in the thread was all the co-ordination needed--we have no relationship outside this thread.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 21:44:47 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Jul 21, 2010 21:44:47 GMT -5
*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? [oog]Autolycus[/oog]
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 22:38:38 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Jul 21, 2010 22:38:38 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? 1. For one thing, I wanted everyone to know that I am not a Cabalist! ;D 2. I chose a specific example for clarity and tried to pick one that made sense (or rather, least nonsense). It seemed likely that Idle would belong to any knowable faction he fudged. The number of Wolves seemed high, and number of Cabalists low, but wouldn't a faction member prefer to under-state rather than over-state his faction size? Hence the idea of a missing cabalist. An "invisible" Town role would be the obvious place to "hide" that hypothetical Cabalist. 3. There were flaws I knew of when I posted: would Idle risk the post if he were a Cabalist? Would that knowledge be too tiny of a Secret Power for Cabalists to have? I did wonder if Idle was involved in a game-balancing discussion and could therefore guess the approximate composition without the alleged PM. I'm a rank newbie, and will doubtless say many stupid things. (This may help my personal survival, as I'll be viewed as a liability rather than asset to my faction.) Also, I don't know how to lie, so am happy I didn't get a scum role.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 23:00:34 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 21, 2010 23:00:34 GMT -5
Interesting, Idle. Although (presuming you are being truthful), it's hard to judge whether or not exposing that info was necessarily prudent at this point, i suppose time will tell. 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. (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. This is the first chance I have had to sit down and write a post, but I read this last night and was immediately pinged by it. His response to Sach is filled with misrepresentations. I think it is obvious that Sach was suggesting there was a better than random chance of hitting non-town in his identified group. I don't know if that is the case, but to say he is not making any attempt to progress towards winning this game is silly. I find that misrepresenting what a player has said or done is often a scum tell. Vote RedSkeezixAs far as Sach's plan is concerned, I am not really against it (I don't really look disfavorably on Metagaming in general), but I think there may be more fertile ground in the responses to his suggestion. I do find Eureka suspicious also, but am aware that a lot of what she has done could possibly be newbieness. Wait, how does Idle having this info make him the town's power possessor? Squink, I've never played conspiracy before either but I skimmed the C3 game and I think it was storyteller who made a comment about how in this game town has to hide their towniness more than in a regular game because of the fact that there are 3 other nontown factions. I'm a little disappointed by Idle's list if true because I think it takes some of the fun out of the game if we know what roles to expect. Sach's plan is a little unfair, I think, in that it seems wrong to me to use information gathered before a game begins, if that makes sense. The flip side here is that he could be completely offbase and we lynch three townies for no reason other than what they felt like last year. Do you really think we would keep lynching them (just for the role list) after the first one turned up Town?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 21, 2010 23:30:29 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 21, 2010 23:30:29 GMT -5
While there is sarcasm in this post, I hope everyone can see past it to it's intent [sarcasm] Underlining mine. I found this example somewhat curious. Why did you select that as your example? Do you think that particular example is likely? 1. For one thing, I wanted everyone to know that I am not a Cabalist! ;D Oh, I'm so glad you cleared that up! *snip* I'm a rank newbie, and will doubtless say many stupid things. (This may help my personal survival, as I'll be viewed as a liability rather than asset to my faction.) Also, I don't know how to lie, so am happy I didn't get a scum role. So you're Town. Great! now I can trust you completely! And you have carte blanche to play poorly. At least we won't have to worry about lynching you anymore since you've cleared things up so well for us. [/sarcasm] You cannot expect us to believe you just because you tell us you are not Cabal and you are Town. I'm not certain why you included extra "proof" in the fact that you are incapable of lying. The whole concept makes me uneasy. It reeks of a newbie trying to "prove" Towniness. A truly Town player might not be as worried about that as a non-Town player.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 4:37:40 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 22, 2010 4:37:40 GMT -5
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. Well, I'm sorry to whale on you a bit, and I'm notoriously bad with pronouns. Also I didn't know you were a newbie. (I'm 100% against voting off newbies for not knowing the "etiquette" here - as Bufftabby said, it nearly happened to me once.) The difference here is the simple fact that you're not town. Newbie or not, I don't believe a townie wrote that post. Sorry. Tell you what, guys, I'll throw this one out there. BillMC must be regard my feelings right now with a certain amount of nostalgia ("Total Lost is the Master of the Deck" sound familiar from a past game?) so I'm going to do exactly what he did, which for newbies was to throw out there a certain offer. If we exile Eureka, and she turns out to be town, I will write every single one of the following days' posts in limerick. Sound good?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 4:43:24 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 22, 2010 4:43:24 GMT -5
Also, if Idle's list turns out to be accurate in terms of numbers as well as roles (I'm assuming the roles are accurate because they're so easy to disprove; the numbers are somewhat more difficult) then I've got a 1/2 chance exactly of being right. Of the twenty-four people other here excluding Zombie Hoopy, twelve are town, twelve aren't.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 4:49:18 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 22, 2010 4:49:18 GMT -5
Clarification needed for non-fans of Irish poetry:
There was a Mole man, so I've heard Whose postings were rather absurd. He hates much aggression And trusts first impression But he generally keeps to his word.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 6:08:01 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 22, 2010 6:08:01 GMT -5
That's a fine sample limerick. I think making all your posts limericks when I am dead and shown to be town is unneccessary.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 6:43:59 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 22, 2010 6:43:59 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? 1. For one thing, I wanted everyone to know that I am not a Cabalist! ;D Well, that didn't work. We still don't know that. Well, I hate to tell you this, but your example neither made sense, nor is it the one with least nonsense. Neither is your example what you just described it as in section 2. You might want to try to word things better. Because what you just described in section 2 would have been taking a Cabalist role and turning it into a Town role. Right.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 8:46:09 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jul 22, 2010 8:46:09 GMT -5
Clarification needed for non-fans of Irish poetry: There was a Mole man, so I've heard Whose postings were rather absurd. He hates much aggression And trusts first impression But he generally keeps to his word.Brains brains brains brains brains Brains brains brains brains brains brains Brains brains brains brains Brains brains brains brains Brains brains brains brains brains brains
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 9:10:09 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 22, 2010 9:10:09 GMT -5
Tell you what, guys, I'll throw this one out there. BillMC must be regard my feelings right now with a certain amount of nostalgia ("Total Lost is the Master of the Deck" sound familiar from a past game?) so I'm going to do exactly what he did, which for newbies was to throw out there a certain offer. If we exile Eureka, and she turns out to be town, I will write every single one of the following days' posts in limerick. Sound good? [spectral presence] well that will certainly be a cheaper bet than the one i made. although it was for a good cause and i don't regret it.[/spectral presence]
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 10:02:42 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 22, 2010 10:02:42 GMT -5
[fluff wonderings] If you bite a zombie, do you become a zombie? [/fluff wonderings]
Eureka's play strikes me less as novice Cabal/Wolf/Undead than just as novice, period.
I find some of Red's play questionable, particularly the misrepresentation pointed out by MentalGuy above.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 10:51:36 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 22, 2010 10:51:36 GMT -5
My thoughts:[...] 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. [...] [ Seven werewolves is not an obviously excessive number, given the frequency with which werewolves end up dead. I went back for another read-through and this jumped out at me. Eureka claims she has no history in the game. BUT - she knows that werewolves tend to die a lot. She uses this knowledge to argue game-balance theory, in fact. How do you know this, Eureka? By your own admission, not by playing Conspiracy. The two possible answers I can think of are 1) You went out and did the research on how each faction performs in the different Conspiracy games. 2) Someone told you. Specifically, another Wolf took the time in the Wolf Night Zero thread to explain to first-time Conspiracy players the strengths and weaknesses of the role. Further, this post also demonstrates a good knowledge of the strategic intricacies of Conspiracy, despite the fact you have no history in the game: 7 wolves may be excessive. It's been too long since I read a discussion on balancing Mafia games to be sure. Especially since this is Conspiracy, where for Town, it has never been enough just to Lynch perfectly, some help from the assorted Scum to kill each other or Lynching players from various factions in the right order to control their power has been needed as well. Coupled with Moley's case, particularly the point about worrying about your own reputation in response to sach's idea, I'm going to vote Eureka
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 11:13:39 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 22, 2010 11:13:39 GMT -5
Interesting, Idle. Although (presuming you are being truthful), it's hard to judge whether or not exposing that info was necessarily prudent at this point, i suppose time will tell. 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. (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. This is the first chance I have had to sit down and write a post, but I read this last night and was immediately pinged by it. His response to Sach is filled with misrepresentations. I think it is obvious that Sach was suggesting there was a better than random chance of hitting non-town in his identified group. I don't know if that is the case, but to say he is not making any attempt to progress towards winning this game is silly. I find that misrepresenting what a player has said or done is often a scum tell. Vote RedSkeezixYou are correct, "I don't know if that is the case, but to say he is not making any attempt to progress towards winning this game is silly. " would be a misrepresentation had I actually said that. What I actually implied was that his plan would not produce results in that direction. The egg's on my face as I was wrong, and his plan is surely providing lots of discussion. But I didn't misrepresent sach, since I was giving my opinion and not restating his. You mention that my post was "filled with misrepresentations". Yet you mention only two which were in fact not misrepresentations at all. Sach had a plan, I disagreed with it's efficacy. Sach believed that it was no worse than random, I made a statement that statements like that in general irk me for the reasons I've stated. But on to other things: Sister Coyote: [fluff wonderings] If you bite a zombie, do you become a zombie? [/fluff wonderings] Eureka's play strikes me less as novice Cabal/Wolf/Undead than just as novice, period. I find some of Red's play questionable, particularly the misrepresentation pointed out by MentalGuy above. How are you discerning between novice and novice scum? What leads you to this conclusion? What other of my play do you find questionable, and questionable how? It's a very vague statement you've made there. It feels very noncommittal to me. In fact it feels smudgy (smudge: negatively biased without an actual accusation of anything specific). I'd say it was a full on smudge, but you have referenced MentalGuy's case. The noncommittal smudge is an easy way for a scum player to bolster a later possible position while simultaneously appearing to be hunting scum and feeling out a lynch. And this is the scummiest thing I've seen all day. vote SisterCoyote
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 11:50:19 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 22, 2010 11:50:19 GMT -5
Oh, please, Red.
I'm not actually discerning between novice and novice scum, though I agree I could have been clearer in my point there. Eureka could be scum, I just don't think any of her play up to this point is definitively Scum-like, not even novice-trying-to-hide-as-Town-Scum-like.
And I think, based on my experience in CIII, that it's a lot harder in Conspiracy games to say 'this is scummy' or 'that is scummy' because -- which branch of "not-Town" are we talking about?
And there isn't any one specific thing in your play that I can point to and say "this feels like Red is not-Town to me", which is why I'm not voting for you. I'm just saying that something about the way you are playing this game, that I cannot put my finger on, feels...off. And that could just be Conspiracy, too; I think I've only played normal Mafia with you, n'est-ce pas?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 12:43:32 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 22, 2010 12:43:32 GMT -5
Why is everyone not voting for Eureka? I think Eureka is an excellent choice for lynch, but I have not voted for her yet because we aren't even 2 days into a 7 day Day. While I know there is a certain philosophy of 'vote early,' I also recognize that Conspiracy is a very different kettle of fish than standard mafia games. There are 25 players in this game, while Eureka is an excellent choice for lynch and I can see myself supporting that lynch, I don't feel compelled to push that wagon quite so early in the Day. Pushing for Eureka's lynch this early is essentially pushing for Eureka's claim early. We don't want to deal with claims late in the Day, but I also don't want to deal with a claim very early in the Day that leads to a string of claims. A claim is inevitable, but I think fostering as much discussion prior to pushing for that first claim is most sensible. Anyway, yes, I think Eureka is scummy. No, I'm not voting for her yet because I don't want a panic claim less than 48 hours into the discussion. For completeness: I agree with Moley that Eureka's concern with how she appears to everyone else is a strong scum tell. I do not agree with the perceived connection between Eureka and Red Skeezix. BTW: Of FCOD, storyteller, and special ed: special ed provided the weakest response to the accusation: "I don't remember." He might as well have said "Lynch me!" I have a hard time believing a scummy Ed would do such a thing. If Ed had made this declaration earlier in the process, I would think he was Town, but since he stated it late, when the idea was clearly not gaining traction, I'm more cool on accepting it as evidence of his townness. So I'm lightly leaning Town on Ed, but just lightly.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 13:48:37 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 22, 2010 13:48:37 GMT -5
stanislaus, you either missed or ignored where Eureka said she had read all three previous Conspiracy games. Please comment on whether knowing this changes your opinion. And I think, based on my experience in CIII, that it's a lot harder in Conspiracy games to say 'this is scummy' or 'that is scummy' because -- which branch of "not-Town" are we talking about? Why does it matter? At a certain level, scummy is scummy. Inconsistency, baiting, mis-representation, disingenuousness, and the like, are universal across the scum pantheon. They're all trying to appear to be something they are not; and occasionally the seams will show where the false front is grafted on. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?) A few scummy behaviors are dependent on faction-specific motives (such as tells associated with protecting or bussing a teammate), but plenty of them aren't.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 14:01:00 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 22, 2010 14:01:00 GMT -5
I did miss that. Which is annoying, because I thought I was being so clever. I still think Moley's case is a good one, but what tipped me into voting was wanting to get a response to my own point. As I know what that response will be:
unvote Eureka
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 14:02:11 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 22, 2010 14:02:11 GMT -5
Right; but each faction, town included, has multiple requirements for their wincon.
So is the action being read as Scummy a Town Power trying to keep one of their wincons (one witch trying to protect another without outing either, for example)? Or is it Cabal trying to reach one of their wincons? or the Wolves or the Undead?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 15:10:38 GMT -5
Post by moodymitchy on Jul 22, 2010 15:10:38 GMT -5
Just caught up and need to go back and read again to make sure I have some things clear in my head before commenting too much but a couple of quick observations... I don't particularly think that EUREKA is SCUM .. I'm getting more a read of a newbie wanting to participate but perhaps being a little too eager to point out that they are not SCUM ... feeling they might not have anything to worry about because they are a good gal....
Now I have no problem with SACHERTORTE posting the list of what players have asked for in previous Conspiracy games... it's information that is available for all to see should the chose to go look..
I'm not sure yet what to make in using it and saying "these folks asked to be bad guys last time... I think we should off them just in case" Ok I know that's not exactly what you are saying and the theory does hold some merit. The proof I guess could be in the pudding .. would you say we lynched one of the 3 and then take it as red if they turn up SCUM that the other 2 will... even I find that a little far fetched...
I realise that some of these things have been covered but I am giving my view of things..
Now IDLE THOUGHTS and the extra information list... well there are just too many possibilities on this one.. but a big problem I see is it opens up a lot of movement for counter claims .. to what might be false claims already...
With 4 factions in the game someone could make a true claim ... which would more than likely be countered and on Day one we'd be left wondering who was blowing stuff out of their ass and who wasn't... That could go on for a couple of days...
I'm not saying it's not true I'm not saying he didn't recieve the list and I'm not saying that he has even altered it... I'm just wondering on the motives of revealing it so early .
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 16:34:54 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jul 22, 2010 16:34:54 GMT -5
I'm not seeing the jump with Eureka from "being defensive and worrying about death" to "must be scum". Especially in a game where you know everyone is a power role(and yes, I consder things like vanilla wolf or cabalist to be power roles), defensiveness in a new player has to be expected. Reading previous games might help you learn things, but knowing something and internalizing it, accepting it to be true, are not the same thing. Only experience can do that for you. I remember getting burned by assuming a desire to stay alive meant scum in one of Meeko's first games. He was Town, and had exactly that sort of attitude. It's not unusual by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 17:13:22 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 22, 2010 17:13:22 GMT -5
If the list info I posted was false, than obviously people would know I was lying at this point...so if there's people who "know I'm lying" and are not believing me, why don't I have anyone voting for me yet?
IMO, that speaks volumes....the fact that nobody is voting for me because, taken on a person by person basis, everyone is looking at the list and going "Hm, well, my role is on it, so I can't say he's lying, at least". At best, nobody knows what to make of it.
But if there was anyone who was anything not on the list, why not say something then, huh? Why not say something and vote for me, then? Because that would obviously show I was lying, right? And so it'd be an easy way to catch someone scummy, right? Like I said above, I think the only people who are tempted to say I'm lying are the wolves themselves...because if someone else posted the list I did and I were another Town role and wasn't on it, you can BET DAMN RIGHT WELL, I'd say something because it would all of expose someone to be a liar and, most likely, scum.
This tells me that all other Townies are seeing the role they are on the list...so they're hesitant to vote for me since they can't call me a liar.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 18:18:06 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 22, 2010 18:18:06 GMT -5
3. There were flaws I knew of when I posted: would Idle risk the post if he were a Cabalist? Would that knowledge be too tiny of a Secret Power for Cabalists to have? I did wonder if Idle was involved in a game-balancing discussion and could therefore guess the approximate composition without the alleged PM.Underlining mine. Do you mean a game-balancing discussion for this game? If so, he wouldn't be playing. If you mean a game balancing discussion for a different game, that wouldn't really carry over. Mod edit: coding fixed.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 18:25:43 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 22, 2010 18:25:43 GMT -5
And I'll give the mod a million Internet Dollars if he fixes my coding in that post.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 22, 2010 23:41:20 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 22, 2010 23:41:20 GMT -5
Hi everyone. Sorry a bit late to start the party, but my best friend from work is leaving the country for several months and I've been in a bit of a....funk. Let's call it that. Anyway, I'm just writing these as I peruse the thread so this will be very stream of consciousness like. sachertorte/Sister Coyote: That's a very interesting idea of mitigating the "nothing to talk about on Day One" scenario. However, I didn't even think of the possibility of it being role fishing until SisCoyote mentioned it. +1 suspicion towards sachertorte possibly trying to out people. @idle Thoughts: I am highly suspicious of this information. 2 Cabal seems way underpowered unless they can recruit. Even then, 3 Cabal seems low in a 25 person game. I was Cabal in C2 and while I can't remember the total numbers, there were 5 of us and it was still an uphill battle. 2 seems kind of cruel. Especially with 7 wolves. @idle Thoughts Part 2: Also, the preemptive "I think Wolves are most likely to disagree" thing is very subtle but smudgetacular. Just sayin'. Whoop, just saw there were 31 people in C2. I'm not sure what that makes my point, relevant or irrelevant. Carry on. Renata, specifically the vote for bufftabby: I...uh...what...uh...what the hell just happened here? I don't even where to begin I just -throws up hands- Ohhhhhh, I get it now. I think. Still....that was a weird jump. metallicsquink: AHA! You just exactly said what was subconsciously bugging me about nphase's post. Thank you for being eloquent. Otherwise I would have been all fubbitybubbitywubbity. @honest Moley: Getting angry that people aren't automatically agreeing with your assessment is totally a blatant scumtell. ....KIDDING, KIDDING, ohgoddon'thurtmeahhhI'mtooprettynotthefacenottheface. @zombie Frood: I vote we make Hoopy a zombie in every game. He is too damn entertaining. @idle Thoughts, Part 3: There you go being smudgetacular again! Although, this was almost a blatant accusation of people being wolves so I'm not sure it's a smudge. Anyway. This blatant goading of anyone who exists that can disprove your list is fishy. Especially since one of the roles missing is the Magician, which is useful to figure out who is doing nightkills, and a scum who has a nightkill would be very glad to have a Magician step forward and "disprove" your list so they can avoid attacking them. Warlock is missing too, which would be another useful thing for a scum to know about. And yes, I'm aware that scum knowing any role would be helpful to them, but Magicians and Warlocks are the most associated with kills and having horrible effects for the Nightkillers. Witchdoctors, too, actually, now that I think about it, since the resurrections will also identify the Nightkillers. So the missing town roles are the Magician, someone who can discover the identify of a Nightkiller. A Warlock, who can curse a Nightkiller into dying. A Witchdoctor, who can resurrect the killed AND identify the Nightkiller if successful. And a Vig, who is the only town method of Nightkilling. For some reason, this strikes me as very very suspicious. J'ACCUSE, Idle Thoughts, J'ACCUSE. (Sorry, I just read Vol. 6 of Scott Pilgrim and J'ACCUSE is stuck in my head. I'm going around saying it to everyone, now. Don't mind me.)
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 23, 2010 0:14:05 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 23, 2010 0:14:05 GMT -5
If you find me so suspicious then vote for me. The sooner I'm killed off and found to be Town, the sooner ya'll can trust in the list.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 23, 2010 2:23:20 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Jul 23, 2010 2:23:20 GMT -5
Reconsidering Idle's PM, by far the most likely explanation, I now think, is that Idle is Town, did get the PM, and did post it truthfully. (This leaves the question of whether that's Town's Special Power, and if not, whether Pleonast violated his own rules, but those seem to pose fewer difficulties than any other explanation for Idle's claim.) Do you mean a game-balancing discussion for this game? If so, he wouldn't be playing. If you mean a game balancing discussion for a different game, that wouldn't really carry over. I was thinking of a general discussion that might allow him to guess the approximate composition, but see from another post that the variance in composition is too large for Idle to guess with confidence. As I just mentioned, I now think Idle was truthful, with my "missing Cabalist" hypothesis being at best the 2nd most likely possibility. Kat!, do you agree Idle is being truthful? If not, what's your guess for the details of his ploy? I've come up with little so far. Idle and Septimus are Townies. Newbies seem scummy. Experienced players may be too clever for me as yet, but I am trying to learn. As I expected, playing Mafia is a much different experience from viewing it as bystander. I fear my comments will often be too obvious, too stupid, too foolishly whimsical, definitely too candid (or some combination thereof) but will try to improve. And I'll give the mod a million Internet Dollars if he fixes my coding in that post. Perhaps you should have offered an infinite amount of money. From a recent SDMB mathematics thread, that might mean he'd owe you a twelfth of a gallon of beer!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 23, 2010 6:55:32 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 23, 2010 6:55:32 GMT -5
Renata, specifically the vote for bufftabby: I...uh...what...uh...what the hell just happened here? I don't even where to begin I just -throws up hands- Ohhhhhh, I get it now. I think. Still....that was a weird jump. metallicsquink: AHA! You just exactly said what was subconsciously bugging me about nphase's post. Thank you for being eloquent. Otherwise I would have been all fubbitybubbitywubbity. If you mistrust my sincerity or my judgment so much, you might wish to take note that bufftabby has been here, posted a "thank you for clarifying" to Moley, and left again, without commenting on my vote. You might also note that her only contribution to the thread since it began has been that one question and the follow-up. So many many things to talk about, and the only thing worth noting is a tiny oddball statement from a player who has just garnered a bit of negative attention from someone else? Quit criticizing the superficially oddball nature of my own vote and actually think about it. I play a lot lately on a site where phases are short and posts are shorter -- you learn to read a lot into a little, or you lose. I've gotten used to it, and I'm pretty good at it, thankyouverymuch.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 23, 2010 8:17:14 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 23, 2010 8:17:14 GMT -5
If you mistrust my sincerity or my judgment so much, you might wish to take note that bufftabby has been here, posted a "thank you for clarifying" to Moley, and left again, without commenting on my vote. You might also note that her only contribution to the thread since it began has been that one question and the follow-up. My follow-up should have cleared your question up, so why would I feel the need to specifically respond to you, for a vote that doesn't make any sense anyway? We'll see about that. I don't like idle's approach. It smacks of possible role-fishing, and I'm suspicious of anyone who presses so hard for people to trust him, when there's no reason I know of to do so. Perhaps no one's voting for him for lying yet, because that would expose that they were not on the list, thereby narrowing the pool of what their possible role is. I don't know that he's lying; I don't know that he's telling the truth. But his approach rubs me the wrong wrong wrong way. Vote: idle thoughts
|
|