|
Day One
Jul 24, 2010 22:34:18 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 24, 2010 22:34:18 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. K. Vote Idle Thoughts
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 5:51:43 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 25, 2010 5:51:43 GMT -5
In general I agree with Ed's and MHaye's commentary, especially MHaye's comments about game setup - so I would tend to agree with the viewpoint that Idle's list is a "secret power". Whether the content of the list has been modified by Idle is another question - as revealed the setup appears very unbalanced and thus would have to rely on the secret powers to balance it; revealling the setup as a secret power doesn't really address the balance. Idle is very sure there is no vig threat to him - so either he is in possession of an accurate list, or he is the vig. However, in a play reminiscint of my first ever game with Idle (in which he was a Miller), he's taking the "kill me to prove I'm right" approach -- while there is no explicit Miller role in the setup, it is possible, though unlikely, that there is a secret power activated on his death. I'm leaning towards Idle being town, tho his motivation for revealing the list is unclear.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 5:57:19 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 25, 2010 5:57:19 GMT -5
You could look at the past role list in numerous ways - about half the folks had a town role as their first choice, but non-town for a subsequent choice -- so I think you are town..or you are not :-) If we are voting for folk based on roles on past games, we may as well vote on who killed you in previous games. I am not sure why this didn't strike me more the first time I read it. Again, I believe we have a misrepresentation. Sach was not focusing on the players that had a town first and nontown after, but on the players that had chosen specifically non-town roles exclusively. Who killed you in previous games is a matter of what has happened in the specific game, while what roles you preferred is a matter of personal preference and could reasonably be expected to remain the same (especially if a player did not get that role before). You appear to be the one stretching for a misrepresentation. I did not disagree or misrepresent Sach's "non-town" theory - I said you could interpret peoples choices in many ways. Sach's metagame theory is a valid hypothesis, but can only be proven by those on the list being dead. What I don't like about this theory is that it takes the focus off of everyone else. And it appears you are also implying that anyone who has asked for a non-town role before but didn't get it, should be viewed as potential scum now because they reasonably asked for the role they didnt get before again? That should get a gold star for a mass smudge.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 9:53:44 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 25, 2010 9:53:44 GMT -5
Oh, and another thing..who is talking about a vig countering my list? it doesn't reveal who is what just by saying "yes, I'm a role on that list". People who are really Town would have nothing to lose by doing this. Only people who are wolves or cabal or undead (because then it takes away places to hide...extra false claims they could make). If you all knew that my list was the stone cold truth, nobody could make a false claim of something not in the game. You'd be able to use it as a handy dandy guide for the rest of the game. You could mass claim, even, later on...and weed out those lying. Seriously, what are the wolves and undead and cabalists going to do if they have to mass claim and my list is KNOWN to be true? They'll have to claim something on the list, obviously, which would, at the WORST, create situations like two people claiming the same thing. This last is sort of a good point. If Idle's identity can be confirmed as Town, a mass claim could - I'd have to think through the details and write the whole thing out (and I will, very shortly), but it's at least theoretically possible - be close to game breaking. Depending on how the various Scum decide to play their false claims, we would either end up with a bunch of either/or-type lynches or with a bunch of confirmed Townies; either one would be tremendously powerful. And the thing is, in such a situation - we really wouldn't be giving the usual amount of information away! Because from the standpoint of each individual Scum group, it would be impossible to determine whether any given individual claimant (other than one of their own, and not even that in the case of at least some of the undead) is telling the truth. The counterbalance, of course, is that by giving this information to Idle, Pleo would have to have been aware of the possibility. Hm. I am vaguely suspicious of those voting for Idle; it seems, at first blush, to be an easy vote for a player who has made a controversial decision. My initial vote will probably be on one of those people. First, though, I owe a re-read. --------------- As a side-note, I really, really expected to be dead by now in the SDMB game currently ongoing. The fact that I am not means I must unexpectedly split my time between the two games, which means my participation may be somewhat less than normal at least until the other game ends or I am killed in it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 9:55:22 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 25, 2010 9:55:22 GMT -5
Sach's metagame theory is a valid hypothesis, but can only be proven by those on the list being dead. What I don't like about this theory is that it takes the focus off of everyone else. In what way does this differ from any argument? Most arguments require their subjects to be dead for confirmation, and most arguments by their very nature place focus on a single or a few players at the expense of others. How is this any different?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 15:57:42 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 25, 2010 15:57:42 GMT -5
Look at that, I completely forgot that we can vote for more than one person. Well that would make deciding much easier, but I think this kind of copout mechanism benefits scum and will overall hurt the town. Therefore, I will cast only one vote, and I encourage all other players to do the same*. Of the two I would be more inclined to vote for Eureka.
Vote: Eureka Reason: I'm buying what Moley is selling. To give a better accounting, I specifically agree with Moley's point that Eureka is overly concerned with how she appears to other players. While I can see the argument that this is something that a new player may also do, I also think that this kind of behavior is more likely to occur in a non-Town player, which is enough for me.
*Note: at endgame the voting mechanism will need to be gamed much more carefully. I haven't thought it through completely yet, but I very much think that multi-voting will hurt the Town because scum like Wolves can coordinate their votes.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 25, 2010 19:26:13 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 25, 2010 19:26:13 GMT -5
I'm not really feeling the idle case. As it stands the pro-town reasoning (increase of information, no info loss if he dies) feels more right than the anti-town reasoning which to me boils down to if idle is not town then the list can't be trusted. =============================================== 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 I don't like this vote, I've been trying to make sense of it, but it seems to me to be a pretty thin vote. How I'm reading this vote: 1. Possible role fishing (expensive don't you think?) 2. Dislikes trust pressure (IIRC, Idle is given to cassandra-esque behavior, sometimes in big writing even) 3. People might not be voting him for fear of exposure 4. Unsure about lying or telling the truth 5. A gut reading (meaningless from a reasoning standpoint) I'm reading this vote as overly contrived. I'm not even convinced that bufftabby thinks idle is scum, which to me says she is. vote bufftabby============================================== @sach, based on your most recent statement, I have to ask: Are you aware that a majority lynch is required for this game? (majority as in not plurality, so 13 votes on a person toDay or no lynch). I don't see multi-voting as a particularly anti-town mechanism just a counterweight to the majority lynch rule, as suggested by duvsie. ie there won't be enough of a consensus without people voting for everyone that they find suspicious. Near the end it will be advisable to have full consensus lynches, but that is the case in any game multivoting or not. There is also another piece which i've hinted at already, but the multivoting closes the door on excusing smudges and smudge based distancing with the explanation, "Well I think so-and-so is scummy, but I'm not going to vote for them because that other guy is scummier" or "I'd vote for you both, but I only have one vote."
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 1:29:53 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Jul 26, 2010 1:29:53 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the messages to choose lynch candidate(s), and one name keeps coming up on top. Understand that I strongly think Idle's post is Town and truthful (or almost truthful); that many other players seem to agree with that assessment; and therefore that those attacking Idle or his list may be scummy. Red just explained this better: I'm reading this vote as overly contrived. I'm not even convinced that bufftabby thinks idle is scum, which to me says she is. There are a few other players who "ping" as anti-Idle, but bufftabby seems most suspicious. Vote bufftabby
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 2:39:55 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 2:39:55 GMT -5
What these votes on me seem to come down to is that you both disagree with my take on idle's list, so I must be scummy.
redskeezix said:
1. How do you know how expensive it is? Do you know idle's role? I don't. 2. I already said idle's behavior is about par for the course, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore it. 3. That's not exactly a reason for voting him, but it's true. It's a reason for not not voting for him, in response to the afore-mentioned cassandra-esque wailing and gnashing of teeth. 4. Yes. See #2. 5. More like, see #2 again.
septimus said:
Now, that's a thin vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 2:58:50 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 2:58:50 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. K. Vote Idle ThoughtsThis is a pretty scummy move. I mean, yes or no, are you a role on my list? If yes, then you shouldn't be voting for me. If no, then call me a liar. All this can be resolved just by answering that question and it doesn't say anything one way or another about your (or anyone elses) role at all. Again, if yes (and I know, for certain, it is a yes) why are you voting for me? Because since you know your role does appear on my list, seems to me it should give the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 4:56:39 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 26, 2010 4:56:39 GMT -5
Sach's metagame theory is a valid hypothesis, but can only be proven by those on the list being dead. What I don't like about this theory is that it takes the focus off of everyone else. In what way does this differ from any argument? Most arguments require their subjects to be dead for confirmation, and most arguments by their very nature place focus on a single or a few players at the expense of others. How is this any different? True - tho I meant it takes the focus off of folk for metagame reasons. It would be equally (in)valid to say that maybe the folks who played as a team in mazalan chose to be all on the same side in C4, so we should look at them, or all folks who like Dr Pepper have got to be scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 5:43:00 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Jul 26, 2010 5:43:00 GMT -5
Two different expert Mafia players have reacted to two different and unrelated messages by you (#56 and #119), saying they sound scummy enough to get a Lynch vote. As a beginner, I follow their lead to some extent. Meanwhile, my logic tells me that anti-Idle reasoning is scummy. Together, these points made you my best lynch candidate, IMO. Are you suggesting that as a matter of etiquette I should have referenced all the relevant messages, lest my vote be thought "thin"?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 8:14:22 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 8:14:22 GMT -5
Ok, this is kinda thin but it's the only thing that's really pinged me so far this game. Doubtful. Idle was given the list in his role PM: If it's a list made up by another player, Pleo had to be positive that the player was online while role PMs were being sent out and that the player was going to get the list turned in before it was Idle's turn to receive his role PM. And he stated beforehand that they were going out in the order of the player list, so he couldn't just put off sending Idle's role, he had to send it in order. Yes, he could have lied about the order that he was sending them in, but mods shouldn't make even that small a lie in a nonBastard game. [snipped] No, the chance of that being answered is 0, and the chance of people coming forward if they aren't on the list is greater than 0 (I couldn't say how much greater than 0, because it would depend on which player it was, what role they had, and me knowing more about math and statistics than I actually do. Plus, you know, the list could even be true! ) Kat! seems to be rushing to defend Idle here. This post pinged me really strongly. I think it's because she also came to my, story's and Ed's defense earlier in the Day. When I play scum, frequently I try to "buddy up" to someone by defending him/her in an effort to appear like a Town buddy. I obviously can't be sure that's what is going on here but I am suspicious enough to vote. Vote: Kat!. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 9:34:15 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 9:34:15 GMT -5
This last is sort of a good point. If Idle's identity can be confirmed as Town, a mass claim could - I'd have to think through the details and write the whole thing out (and I will, very shortly), but it's at least theoretically possible - be close to game breaking. I disagree, and I'm kind of surprised that you are stating this because we had this discussion after C1 (I think), though maybe you forgot. Conspiracy is a very different animal from standard mafia. Typically, it is the lack of information that impedes progress for Town to win as correct lynches is the mechanism to win. But in conspiracy, the scum factions also don't have perfect information, and this lack of information is what drives cross kills. These cross kills are critically important for Town to win. Perfect information would focus the multiple scum kills on known Town, thereby eliminating the Town's capability to win. Town's chances lie in getting lucky with cross kills and being skilled in the use of Town's powers. Correct lynches would be nice, but they aren't nearly as important as we are used to in traditional games. Heck, we could lynch correctly every Day and still lose if the nightkills fail to cross kill. A mass claim will simply tell scum who they should kill. I'm against a mass claim for this reason, especially early in the game when there are likely to be 3 scum kills each night and numerous town roles that all scum want dead. Traditionally yes, but in Conspiracy the numbers work out to be quite different. In a traditional game we start out with about a 25% chance of lynching a scum by random chance. Furthermore, the probability of scum killing town is 100%. Information is critical to make a better decision. In Conspiracy the probability of lynching scum by random chance is about 50%, but the chance of scum hitting town is less than 100%. At this point, additional information does more to hurt us than help us by focusing the scum kills onto Town. I'd rather take a 50% shot at lynching scum and keeping the nightkillers in the dark about their chances of cross killing. Basically, I'm saying we need to get lucky to win. My feeling about Conspiracy (and criticism) has been that town must have some mechanism to adequately gauge progress in the game. If Town doesn't know how many Cabal are in the game, they could lose simply because there is one Cabal still alive. It could be 10 Town and 1 Cabal, but Town could still lose due to lack of Witches. This is a problem in my opinion. By giving out information on the scum numbers, that would greatly mitigate the Cabal number mystery problem. The situation could still happen, but making Town guess how many Cabal there are is significantly more problematic. (At some point Town would have to assume all Cabal were dead. Now that I type that out, I'm wondering, did Pleonast ever hand out a message when the last of a faction was revealed? That would fix things too). I have the opposite conclusion. At this point, I think those that oppose Idle are more likely to be Town. In my experience, when I've found myself (as Town) in hot water for silly reasons, it is Town that is fueling the fire and Scum that are more likely to be agreeable with me. Furthermore, scum factions (possibly excepting Undead) already know the accuracy of the scum count for their faction. Thus, if Idle is telling the truth, which I think he is, then scum have more evidence to believe him and know not to oppose someone telling the truth. Town on the other hand have a more free attitude to oppose Idle, simply because they don't believe him.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 9:48:17 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 9:48:17 GMT -5
@sach, based on your most recent statement, I have to ask: Are you aware that a majority lynch is required for this game? (majority as in not plurality, so 13 votes on a person toDay or no lynch). I don't see multi-voting as a particularly anti-town mechanism just a counterweight to the majority lynch rule, as suggested by duvsie. ie there won't be enough of a consensus without people voting for everyone that they find suspicious. Near the end it will be advisable to have full consensus lynches, but that is the case in any game multivoting or not. There is also another piece which i've hinted at already, but the multivoting closes the door on excusing smudges and smudge based distancing with the explanation, "Well I think so-and-so is scummy, but I'm not going to vote for them because that other guy is scummier" or "I'd vote for you both, but I only have one vote." I was aware of the vote threshold needs pre-Dawn, but I forgot about it along with forgetting about multi-votes. I had shifted back to standard play thinking by the beginning of the Day. You are correct. The need for a strict majority makes multi-votes the way to go. Furthermore, I was incorrect at stating my desire not to push a bandwagon too early. At that point (Thursday) I was still thinking plurality when the reality of needing a majority put us so far from actual lynch pressure that more votes WAS the correct thing to do (oops). I was still operating in the mode where people throw out claims when faced with 3-5 votes. My mistake. Vote: mister blockey For building a bad case: Confusing high participation with 'controlling the discussion.' You want to discuss something else? Then say something. I see lots of discussion in this thread, one I've led, some I've commented on, and some I haven't.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 10:03:19 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 26, 2010 10:03:19 GMT -5
I have to admit that I found Blockey's comment about high participation very baffling. We want high participation; the more people talk, the better the chances one of the not-Town factions is going to give themselves away.
Now, I disagreed with you (and still disagree) about voting for someone based on what are essentially metagamey reasons, but it has certainly given us something to talk about.
Vote: Mister Blockey
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 10:29:32 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 26, 2010 10:29:32 GMT -5
In Conspiracy the probability of lynching scum by random chance is about 50%, but the chance of scum hitting town is less than 100%. At this point, additional information does more to hurt us than help us by focusing the scum kills onto Town. I'd rather take a 50% shot at lynching scum and keeping the nightkillers in the dark about their chances of cross killing. It's probably a pointless discussion, and maybe we can continue it in another forum when this game is over, but I'm not sure I agree. I don't see how a mass claim increases the chance that Scum will hit Town with their various Night kills. Say we have three claimants for a role that Idle says only exists once for real. Two of those is Scum. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one is Cabal and the other is a Vampire. The Wolves sit down (metaphorically speaking) to plan their Night kill. They look at the three claimants for that role. How do they know anything more than they knew before - that none of the three is a Wolf? If their goal is to find and kill Town, specifically, how do they go about that? Their chances, in such a circumstance, would be 33% - probably not dissimilar to their chances of hitting Town on a randomly chosen Night kill at the outset of the game. Perfect information distributed to all would absolutely kill the Town in a game like this, but a mass claim would not constitute perfect information. I'm not sure it would work, mind, and I'd want to do a whole lot more hashing out of possibilities before I'd advocate it as a strategy, but it's not comparable to a reliable reveal because Scum lying would confuse other Scum just as much as it confuses Town.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 11:12:04 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 26, 2010 11:12:04 GMT -5
This long post from ed struck me as suspicious for a couple of reasons. First of all, ed uses Idle's list to do some strategic thinking about each faction. The first point to note is that he is accepting Idle's list as true. I know he's inserted a standard disclaimer (which reads like an afterthought, by the way) but his whole post rests on it being not just mainly accurate but entirely accurate. For example, his analysis of the Wolves position relies on their being 7 of them - if there were 6 (which is quite plausible) then all the balance that he is considering gets thrown out of whack. So he's not mainly trusting Idle - he's wholly trusting him. Now, I think the people most likely to believe Idle's list are those who have evidence to do so (as I see sach has pointed out). That is, those who see their faction correctly enumerated. Prime suspects for this are Wolves and Cabal (possibly Undead, but that would also assume that they have separately been given role info about their faction, so less likely). So that makes me slightly suspicious. Something else to think about: If the list is accurate, then Undead has another advantage built in (in addition to Zombie Frood). They've got 2 un-Night-killable members, because only Vigs can Nightkill a Vampire. [/size][/quote] and just 1 seer to try to find them compared to 3 detectives to try to find the wolves. Though, the witches could also find out if they were Undead if they investigated, at least I think they would, wouldn't they? Here's some thoughts I've had in looking at Idle's claim (insert standard disclaimer here that if he's lying then blah blah blah) and the roles. Since I've really only lasted 1 cycle in Conspiracy, I'm not as familiar with the roles as most people. So if my thinking is in error, please enlighten me. So, that Un-NightKillable Vampires seems to be an Undead advantage. The folks working against them are the Vicar and the seer and potentially the 3 witches with an investigation The Wolves have an advantage of numbers. Working against them are 3 detectives, so they can be easily ID'd when they kill and a Detective can more easily come out and claim knowing that there are 2 more detectives to continue his work. I think the Town has an advantage in some good confirmable members. 3 witches, 3 freemasons, and a Scotsman. I don't see much going for the Cabal. They'll need 7 Wolves, 3 Undead, and at least 2 witches dead before they can win. I'm guessing their secret power is quite a power.[/quote] I also think there's something telling in the first section of this post, when he analyses the set-up. 1) He mentions the number of Detectives twice. Right at the beginning of his post, when thinking about Undead, he immediately compares their position to the Wolves. He then comes back to the Detectives (naturally enough) when considering the Wolves' position. 2) To my mind, he somewhat overstates the threat 3 Detectives pose. First of all, he says that Wolves can "easily" be ID'd when they kill. I'm not sure that's true. As ed believes Idle's numbers, let's say there are two Vampires. Most likely, there will be three dead bodies to investigate. If the Detectives are acting independently, there's no guarantee they'll hit the 1 corpse in 3 that the Wolves are responsible for. Secondly, ed says that Detectives can easily claim, knowing they have back-up. This is misleading - only Idle's revelation makes this true. In a discussion about set-up and balancing, this should not be a consideration. The effect on the Detectives of knowing they have partners is something ed has been thinking about in light of Idle's list. The people most likely to think about how Idle's revelation makes things hard for the Wolves are...Wolves. Then we have his summary of the game. It is exceptionally wishy-washy: Non-committal. Non-committal. Non-committal. Non-committal, arguably to the point of being smudgy. Not sure what to make of this. Just a fluff joke? Non-committal on bufftabby, smudgy on nphase. Slightly closer to being an actual opinion, but still very softly played. More non-committment on Buff. More ickyness. I'm really not sure what the rest of us are meant to do with that assessment. A list of numbers posted without explanation or apparent purpose. Looks helpful though. All told, I'm going to: vote special ed[/color]
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 11:22:51 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 11:22:51 GMT -5
Well, no. If I were suggesting that, I would have, ya know, suggested that. Two different expert Mafia players have reacted to two different and unrelated messages by you (#56 and #119), saying they sound scummy enough to get a Lynch vote. As a beginner, I follow their lead to some extent. Meanwhile, my logic tells me that anti-Idle reasoning is scummy. Together, these points made you my best lynch candidate, IMO. Two different players of whose alignment you have no idea have made thin votes on me. Following the lead of players who may actively be working against you may not be your best course of action. You'll note that there are other expert mafia players who don't find votes for idle suspicious at all.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 11:39:00 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 11:39:00 GMT -5
The Wolves sit down (metaphorically speaking) to plan their Night kill. They look at the three claimants for that role. How do they know anything more than they knew before - that none of the three is a Wolf? If their goal is to find and kill Town, specifically, how do they go about that? Their chances, in such a circumstance, would be 33% - probably not dissimilar to their chances of hitting Town on a randomly chosen Night kill at the outset of the game. You are considering one slice of a mass claim. You need to consider the entirety. While there might be some roles that are in contention and scum may or may not know which is Town and which is scum, nightkills are not restricted to these contested claims. I find it unlikely that all claims will have a false scum claim. There will be some uncontested claims (esp. Mason, Witch) that will point with reliability to Town roles. Wolves, not wanting to hit a vampire at night will happily target a person known to be Town. You yourself pointed out that a mass claim could lead to a confirmed Town set. I'm pointing out that a confirmed Town set this early in the game is NOT a good thing. Therefore, I'm against a mass claim.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -5
Post by moodymitchy on Jul 26, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -5
I tend to agree that plural voting this early on is not really going to change much as there are many players still in and although you could say that multi voting is a slightly stronger action than FOS... Also to be voting 2 newbies just because you feel their play appears SCUMMY....
I haven't played here that much and am getting used to the sort of posts I can expect from some of the players.. but I HAD to learn that, that was the way they played and I'm sure you're all getting used to how I play so for that reason I'm going to
VOTE MENTALGUY
Also with the mulit vote and the size of the game (I don;t think I've played in one much bigger) one Day one it's a good place for SCUM to do this and then however long down the road when possibly one of BILLMc SEPTIMUS or EUREKA to turn SCUM...
MENTALGUY can pop up saying he told us so way back in Day one.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 12:27:27 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 26, 2010 12:27:27 GMT -5
I think it should be noted that we have about 26 hours left today, and there are 11 players who have not cast a single vote yet:
03. Merestil Haye 05. storyteller 06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc 12. Inner Stickler 14. Captain Pinkies 17. Idle Thoughts 22. duvsie 24. Kat! 25. Nanook
I hate to go all bioshock, but would you kindly please get your suspicions organized to the point of voting. A late day pile on has consequences that are even greater in this game than others due to the delayed reveal.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 13:11:11 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 13:11:11 GMT -5
It would be equally (in)valid to say that maybe the folks who played as a team in mazalan chose to be all on the same side in C4, so we should look at them, or all folks who like Dr Pepper have got to be scum. Sometimes playing this game makes me want to stab my eyeballs. No. Just No. What you propose here is wrong on so many levels. How shall I begin? (1) If you had evidence that a particular player prefers to play as scum for whatever reason (more fun, a challenge, likes being the 'bad' guy) don't you think that becomes relevant in a game where people can choose their own alignment? If I could point to a post from 2008 where player X states "I much prefer playing scum than town; town is so boring." Don't you think that bit of information is interesting and relevant here? (2) Historical role choice is in no way equivalent to the examples you propose. Firstly, a group of people coordinating their roles would be cheating. Second, a group of people coordinating their roles gives no indication of alignment. They could just as well be Witches and Masons. Thirdly, I know of no studies that show a correlation between Dr. Pepper and propensity for choosing scum. In contrast, I'm quite certain that a propensity to choose scum roles is good evidence for a propensity to choose scum roles.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 13:46:33 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 13:46:33 GMT -5
Sachertorte, I was going over some posts and (underlining mine): The idea that Cabal can recruit makes sense too, but I think recruitment is too weak to make up for small numbers (especially since the recruitee can refuse). This is not in the rules. The rules say "There may be some forms of limited recruitment" and that's all. vote: sachertorte[/color] I know that some game hosts around here (Storyteller comes to mind) have very definite ideas about recruitment and its proprieties, but I'm not aware if Pleonast is one of them. Where'd you get this idea from?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 13:49:22 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 26, 2010 13:49:22 GMT -5
I think it should be noted that we have about 26 hours left today, and there are 11 players who have not cast a single vote yet: 03. Merestil Haye I can't speak for the others, but my suspicions resolutely refuse to come into focus; at the moment it would feel like playing roulette and being required to bet on red or black. So much so that I've just given a little thought to what might happen if we don't lynch, either because we can't get 13 players to vote for the same player, or because a majority vote no lynch. My conclusion is that, on the whole, I'd rather see a lynch. We have a 50/50 chance of hitting a member of an antiTown faction (I expect a 13/12 split, although I don't know which way the balance would fall.) No lynch appears superficially attractive - we avoid lynching almost blindly and perhaps crucially weakening Town, plus the lynch is a less significant component of the expected number of deaths in a cycle. But we are still giving up the initiative to the anti-Town killers, delaying the emergence of the first death reveal(s) by half a day, and - most importantly to my mind - if we can lynch a nonTown player Today, that's one less to go. Therefore I will be looking for a vote tonight. A word about my personal timetable - I have to go out on Tuesdays, and cannot play from my office. Thus I will have only about two hours at the end of the Day tomorrow to absorb the day's play and vote accordingly. I'm off to finish second read now.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 13:54:45 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 13:54:45 GMT -5
Sachertorte, I was going over some posts and (underlining mine): The idea that Cabal can recruit makes sense too, but I think recruitment is too weak to make up for small numbers (especially since the recruitee can refuse). This is not in the rules. Yes, it is. I suggest you read the rules again.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 13:57:19 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 26, 2010 13:57:19 GMT -5
Sachertorte, I was going over some posts and (underlining mine): The idea that Cabal can recruit makes sense too, but I think recruitment is too weak to make up for small numbers (especially since the recruitee can refuse). This is not in the rules. The rules say "There may be some forms of limited recruitment" and that's all. vote: sachertorte I know that some game hosts around here (Storyteller comes to mind) have very definite ideas about recruitment and its proprieties, but I'm not aware if Pleonast is one of them. Where'd you get this idea from? Really, Sach should know better. C1 featured recruitment as a special power. The power was a single-use ability that required the player to die. They would then return to life a Day later, just as if enchanted by a Witchdoctor. They could not refuse, if they were eligible for recruitment. The idea of refusible recruitment was developed by NAF and Kat for Alien Taste (that's a three-faction setup.) Buit there's no evidence one way or another that Pleo would utilise it. That feels to me like it could be a little bit of extra knowledge slipping out.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:02:06 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 26, 2010 14:02:06 GMT -5
Addendum. The rules do indeed state that players will always have a choice to refuse being recruited. Therefore I withdraw my suggestion that Sach had some extra knowledge.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:02:55 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 14:02:55 GMT -5
Sachertorte, I was going over some posts and (underlining mine): This is not in the rules. Yes, it is. I suggest you read the rules again. Retracted, I found it. unvote: sachertorte[/color] "There may be limited forms of recruitment in this game; however, players will always have the option of choosing an alternative penalty (such as death) instead of recruitment."
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:04:41 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 14:04:41 GMT -5
Sachertorte, I was going over some posts and (underlining mine): This is not in the rules. The rules say "There may be some forms of limited recruitment" and that's all. vote: sachertorte I know that some game hosts around here (Storyteller comes to mind) have very definite ideas about recruitment and its proprieties, but I'm not aware if Pleonast is one of them. Where'd you get this idea from? Really, Sach should know better. C1 featured recruitment as a special power. The power was a single-use ability that required the player to die. They would then return to life a Day later, just as if enchanted by a Witchdoctor. They could not refuse, if they were eligible for recruitment. The idea of refusible recruitment was developed by NAF and Kat for Alien Taste (that's a three-faction setup.) Buit there's no evidence one way or another that Pleo would utilise it. That feels to me like it could be a little bit of extra knowledge slipping out. Peaches Christ! What's with the UK folks this game? There may be limited forms of recruitment in this game; however, players will always have the option of choosing an alternative penalty (such as death) instead of recruitment. (my underline) I'm fine with forgetting stuff (like multi-vote and the vote threshold... gee who would have done that? ;D) But if you're gonna smear someone or vote for someone, you might look it up for yourself.
|
|