|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 12:35:35 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 12:35:35 GMT -5
Or did we forget Colorless already? <snipped> oh get over it i freely admit that was not the pinnacle of my mafia endeavors. that, however, should not translate into other folks possession of said role and what their success rate might be. the only thing that worries me is the compulsive nature of the role. and maybe this should be a mod question but i'll throw it out to the group just for grins and giggles. what would happen if there was a compulsory vig, scum had a redirector and town had a redirector that both target the vig with different redirections? i mean is it the first one, the last one or do they just cancel each other out? just curious is all.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 12:44:41 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Sept 17, 2010 12:44:41 GMT -5
When discussing redirectors, it's important to consider how the redirector works. Evereyone seems to be assuming that the Redirector chooses to redirect a target's actions onto another target. But there's also the "reflector" type of redirector, that redirects actions from one target onto another. And then there's the bus driver, which I guess is like a double-reflector.
Only one of these types can effectively utilize a compulsive vig to gain an extra scum kill. In my own, limited experience, the reflector-type seems to be a more common scum redirector.
This is not an argument for or against a Stay Puft lynch, but it's something to consider when discussing vig-redirection.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 12:45:02 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 17, 2010 12:45:02 GMT -5
Or did we forget Colorless already? <snipped> oh get over it The wiki don't say much about Colorless. What happened and why bring it up now? And I don't think I've ever been in a game with both a scum redirector and a townie one. But just as we never ever say "Scum would never do that" I've learned never to say "A mod would never do that". I think there was a discussion about this in the Meta Game-thread started by MiteyMouse about a year ago...
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:09:40 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 13:09:40 GMT -5
To answer a couple of questions about the verbiage I used in my role claim:
"Compulsive Town Vigilante" is exactly as my role is described. I'm working under the assumption that three words out of the entire PM does not count as "quoting the PM". (If I'm wrong, I suppose this entire discussion is moot, because Mister Blockey will be cooking up the s'mores for everyone tonight)
When I said a few posts later " I must kill every night, and I win only if the Town wins," that was not a direct quote, but is an accurate summation of my win condition.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:14:38 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 13:14:38 GMT -5
To answer a couple of questions about the verbiage I used in my role claim: "Compulsive Town Vigilante" is exactly as my role is described. I'm working under the assumption that three words out of the entire PM does not count as "quoting the PM". (If I'm wrong, I suppose this entire discussion is moot, because Mister Blockey will be cooking up the s'mores for everyone tonight) When I said a few posts later " I must kill every night, and I win only if the Town wins," that was not a direct quote, but is an accurate summation of my win condition. that's sufficent puffy. thanks.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:16:43 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 13:16:43 GMT -5
<snipped> oh get over it The wiki don't say much about Colorless. What happened and why bring it up now? And I don't think I've ever been in a game with both a scum redirector and a townie one. But just as we never ever say "Scum would never do that" I've learned never to say "A mod would never do that". I think there was a discussion about this in the Meta Game-thread started by MiteyMouse about a year ago... i was a town vig that was blocked the first couple of Nights. then i went on a town killing spree. not by intent but because of monkey brains. clinched it for scum on the last Night.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:25:52 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 17, 2010 13:25:52 GMT -5
(Vote: FCoD/Joe for being here but not-here. Two posts just seems a suspiciously low number to me, for FCoD -- Two posts for BillMcBatman or La Comptesse Duvsie is far more normal. ) I hate to bring RL into it, but I have been just swamped at work this week on top of moving into a new apartment. If the work stuff hadn't come up I'd be posting more. It should die down in over the next week and I'll start participating more. I am posting when I can but I haven't been able to do much analysis. --FCOD
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:31:51 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 17, 2010 13:31:51 GMT -5
The wiki don't say much about Colorless. What happened and why bring it up now? And I don't think I've ever been in a game with both a scum redirector and a townie one. But just as we never ever say "Scum would never do that" I've learned never to say "A mod would never do that". I think there was a discussion about this in the Meta Game-thread started by MiteyMouse about a year ago... i was a town vig that was blocked the first couple of Nights. then i went on a town killing spree. not by intent but because of monkey brains. clinched it for scum on the last Night. That's why I'm not very keen of compulsive vig's (that and the fact a Town vig once killed me big town while I was Town). But they don't have any extra informations and therefor they're very likely to get it wrong... I looked the discussion up. It had more to do with blocker >< redirectors, so I'm not sure it will help us much in this game. Anyway, it's here if anyone wants to read it: idlemafia.com/index.cgi?board=temp&action=display&thread=867
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:34:19 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 13:34:19 GMT -5
(Vote: FCoD/Joe for being here but not-here. Two posts just seems a suspiciously low number to me, for FCoD -- Two posts for BillMcBatman or La Comptesse Duvsie is far more normal. ) I hate to bring RL into it, but I have been just swamped at work this week on top of moving into a new apartment. If the work stuff hadn't come up I'd be posting more. It should die down in over the next week and I'll start participating more. I am posting when I can but I haven't been able to do much analysis. --FCOD No problem, I can help you with the analysis. Iskaral is a big scary, shadowy figure who rides a black horse and wants to kill you all in your sleep. I am the most harmless thing. Something you loved from childhood. Something that could never ever possibly destroy you. That pretty much sum it up, I think...right guys?
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 13:51:04 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 17, 2010 13:51:04 GMT -5
Squeek (I didn't see any reason to comment on the BillMcBatman vote other than what I said there, and honestly I dithered between FCoD/Joe and Pinkies. But I also mentioned FCoD/Joe in my earlier response to you about lynching the lurker, and frankly -- assuming StaPuft is telling the truth -- we have a vig who can take out the non-participant for us. Besides; I find FCoD's low post count and his initial post that he's a "get out of the way" type far more suspicious than Pinkies' total lack of participation.) As I said, what made me wonder wasn't the vote or the fact that FCoD seems like a very nice candidate for the lurker-title. It was more the fact that you also placed a lurker-vote. But instead of trying to a) get the other lurker-voters to move their votes to your candidate with reasons for why your candidate was better or b) explain why you disagreed with their candidates and therefore unable to support their candidate for "the biggest lurker of Day 1" you chose to vote a 3. candidate and ignored the one vote complete and only slightly refer to the first. The result was that you did place a lurker vote. But at the same time it seemed very unlikely that an actually lurker-lynch would take place as a result of this. I'm going to trust my instinct here and Vote Sister Coyote
I want to point out that it is not because she made a lurker-vote. As I have stated earlier in this game, I don't have a problem with loosing the "dead weight" and the players not participating in the game. What doesn't seem right to me is the fact that her vote didn't bring a lurker-lynch forward. It wasn't just a cast-a-way-vote because others did see the point in lynching the lurkers. It was a cast-a-way-vote while others agree on the strategy and without even addressing that issue at all.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:08:48 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 14:08:48 GMT -5
<looks out the window at the hillside, hoping to see the Cavalry charging down to his aid> Nope...nothin'. It's nice that of the 4 votes since my claim this morning, none have been for me...unfortunately they have been for 4 different people, none of whom are in the tiniest bit of danger of actually being lynched. Way to go out on a limb people... Speaking of my claim, this is the post that made me feel it was necessary. Because it twists both my intentions and my actual words. I unvoted despite doubting the claim, not because I doubted it. That doesn't even make sense, is this guy a little light upstairs? Beyond the not-talking-to-women business, heehee. But I'm not going to vote on one sentence. I stand by my statement. If you do not believe a claim, then you do not unvote because of it. If you doubt a claim, but wish to give it time to play out, an unvote is the right play.You did state that you doubted it, but my mind was swayed by the recency effect and what was said about you. You made the correct move. I evaluated it using inaccurate data. So, I'lw will unvote you and vote for the the person who presented your actions as 'not believing' as opposed to 'doubtinh' Unvote: Iskaral/Normal [/color] Vote: Stay-Puft/Suburban [/color][/quote] Raj's last post yesterday was Post 306. At that point, the votes stood at 3 for me and 2 for Iskaral. But Iskaral picked up 3 more votes before the end of the evening, so that before Raj first posted this morning, the vote was 6-5, in my "favor". At that point Raj unvotes Iskaral and votes me because I said Iskaral "didn't believe" Eleanor's claim, instead of saying he "doubted" it. I'm not quite seeing the distinction here. Can someone tell me why you would doubt something if you do believe it? Or was it that Raj went to bed last might thinking he had a "safe" vote on a fellow scum, then woke up this morning to find that the tide had shifted a bit, and he needed a reason to tip the scales back? Now of course, if I'm right that means that Raj and Iskaral are both scum, and I picked them both out in Day 1, which makes me a far, far better Mafia player than my actions would suggest...or maybe it means I need to go buy a lottery ticket...
|
|
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 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:17:39 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Sept 17, 2010 14:17:39 GMT -5
The screen clears momentarily, then a new listing appears. The Three-and-Three-Quarter-Hours-Remaining Vote CountSeven Votes. [/b] : Dr. Strangelove (233), Marcel Marceau (236), Nodrom (289), Rorscach (311), Buddy Christ (315), Zeddicus Zu'l Zoroander (319), Dr. Rajesh Ramayan Koothrappali (321)[/ul] Four Votes. [/b] : Mr. Stay-Puft (291), Jack Skellington (308), Lt. Colombo (309), Nakor, the Blue Rider (313)[/ul] Two Votes. [/b] : Curious George (325)[/ul] One Vote. [/b] : The Corinthian (141) Batman : Iskarul Pust (320) Marcel Marceau : Gir (340) Joe Bauers : Death of Rats (342) Death of Rats : Total Galadriel (369)[/ul]
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:23:01 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Sept 17, 2010 14:23:01 GMT -5
[/b] : Curious George (325)[/ul] [/quote] Huh.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:23:27 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 14:23:27 GMT -5
Is the vote count wrong, or does the little monkey get two votes?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:28:18 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Sept 17, 2010 14:28:18 GMT -5
Could also be a Sekrit Voter! Someone's got a sekrit?
I want a piggy!
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:29:57 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Sept 17, 2010 14:29:57 GMT -5
and i am in total agreement that trying to tie down game name to avatar to player name is adding a wee bit of complexity to this game. snip. Since it's been a long time since I played I'm trying to approach it as playing with brand new people. While it's still a little confusing re the post restrictions, it's becoming fun to read. I was going to vote for Stay Puft until the claim. I felt that Marcel had answered the question as to his post restriction and that Puffy and Eleanor kept making the non-issue into issue. Now both of them have claimed power role. Is a compulsory vig a good thing to have around. Probably not. The odds of the vig hitting town are much greater than hitting scum. Is it worth it on Day One lacking any good scum leads to go ahead and kill the vig. I think it might be. vote: Stay Puft
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:37:24 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 14:37:24 GMT -5
Could also be a Sekrit Voter! Someone's got a sekrit? I want a piggy! Ah yes... I need to learn to think more, and talk less. Funny, you'd think that after 16 years of my wife telling me that, I'd have figured it out by now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:39:19 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 17, 2010 14:39:19 GMT -5
What doesn't seem right to me is the fact that her vote didn't bring a lurker-lynch forward. It wasn't just a cast-a-way-vote because others did see the point in lynching the lurkers. It was a cast-a-way-vote while others agree on the strategy and without even addressing that issue at all. SQUEEK (Okay. And your vote is....on someone who's playing the game for...voting someone who isn't likely to get lynched. With three and one half hours to go, roughly, I could say "pot, kettle." So why vote for me and not for Curious George? How is his vote any less Scummy than mine?) SQUEEK!! (I am really bothered by your post. The idea of voting isn't to pile on someone who's garnered the most votes. It's to sway others to vote as you are voting, regardless of whether you're the first or fifteenth vote on that person. Yes, I could have voted BillMcBatman or Captain Pinkies. But I didn't find either of them to be behaving in an odd, unusual-for-them, or Scummy fashion. Since at the time I voted I had looked back at the Day and decided that FCoD was looking Scummiest, that's what I did. I voted for the person I thought was Scummiest. And you're voting for me for voting for the person I think is Scummiest, instead of following or trying to jump on a bandwagon. No ma'am, I don't like it one bit.) SQUEEK. (Which is not to say that one should never add a vote to a vote leader, or that someone else's argument couldn't have swayed me to a different vote, if I agreed with their assessment.) SQUEEK (Based on the latest vote count, I'm guessing we have some form of vote charger amongst us. This could be interesting. Last game, the vote charger was Scum. This game, I wouldn't even begin to hazard a guess which side they're on.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:40:49 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 17, 2010 14:40:49 GMT -5
(Vote: FCoD/Joe for being here but not-here. Two posts just seems a suspiciously low number to me, for FCoD -- Two posts for BillMcBatman or La Comptesse Duvsie is far more normal. ) I hate to bring RL into it, but I have been just swamped at work this week on top of moving into a new apartment. If the work stuff hadn't come up I'd be posting more. It should die down in over the next week and I'll start participating more. I am posting when I can but I haven't been able to do much analysis. --FCOD SQUEEK. (Fair enough, I suppose. Here I go back through the Day again, sigh.) unvote Joe/FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:45:06 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Sept 17, 2010 14:45:06 GMT -5
So, ah, Mr. Morgan (may I call you Dexter?), may I ask you if you believe the marshmallow man's claim? And if that's the case--I'm sorry, but this is just bothering me--do you honestly think it's better to vote to lynch someone you believe to be Town, instead of taking a chance on an unknown?
I mean, let's say if your only choices--there are no other choices to vote for--are two players you're sure are Town. In that case, by all means, vote for the lynch that will hurt the Town the least. But in this case? I'm sorry, it's just not sitting well with me.
Besides--and this is just me, of course, but I have to disagree that a compulsive vigilante is, by default, a dangerous enough liability to warrant a lynch. Do they often hit Town early on in the game? Sure, of course. Nobody's perfect. But a smart vigilante will be able to help, by targetting unknowns, or lurkers, or players who received a lot of suspicion but didn't yet get lynched. And every death--much as I don't like it, I mean, I'm a homicide detective, but I'd be very happy to be out of a job--every death brings more information to the table. I think a compulsive vigilante can be dangerous, but isn't necessarily so intrinsically. If that makes any sense.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 14:56:07 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 14:56:07 GMT -5
Could also be a Sekrit Voter! Someone's got a sekrit? I want a piggy! Ah yes... I need to learn to think more, and talk less. Funny, you'd think that after 16 years of my wife telling me that, I'd have figured it out by now. well the secret is just to change wives every so often like i do. and if the vote count is correct i have no fracking clue why there are two votes being attributed to me. it's certainly nothing that i am doing. unless the man with the yellow hat is kind of participating in a non contributory fashion. and although i think a compulsory vig is a very dangerous thing to town especially when they are uncovered i wonder if there is a way to make this work to town's benefit.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:00:23 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 17, 2010 15:00:23 GMT -5
SQUEEK (Gir, why are you voting Marcel?)
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:04:41 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 15:04:41 GMT -5
and although i think a compulsory vig is a very dangerous thing to town especially when they are uncovered i wonder if there is a way to make this work to town's benefit. Well, I can help with Step 1: "don't lynch him" ;D
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:06:32 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Sept 17, 2010 15:06:32 GMT -5
-+-Nordom detects strange sensation-+- -+--Pity?
Unvote Mr. Stay Puft Her claim is supported by the fact it's an unlikely claim to for scum to make. It could be an SK claim as he would have the skills to back it up and would claim compulsive in that case. But he's playing so I say let him play.
Vote Twilight Fangirl For not playing. And as I said we do have the Puft/Iskaral lynch leader switch Today to be mined for information now.
On peeker vote conting double - he's an odd target to pick for either town or scum since his voting isn't the most predictable. My guess would be that either he charged himself or the charger thought the lynch is mostly set and it didn't matter who was charged. If it is a vote charge of course - I can also see it as a moderator vote as punishment for not playing (similar with the punishing for breaking a post restriction).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:09:19 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Sept 17, 2010 15:09:19 GMT -5
--++--Addendum
And if it's a scum vote charger then it would suggest scum are happy with either a Puft/Iskaral lynch so another point to lynch someone else. But a town one would also not want to polute the record and charged a one off vote instead just because he could...
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:18:59 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 15:18:59 GMT -5
On peeker vote conting double - he's an odd target to pick for either town or scum since his voting isn't the most predictable. <snipped> fuck you nordom i also am inclined to let puffy dude live. i mean depending on what happens during the Night then we get some information. if his target goes kaput then most likely scum don't have a redirector (good knowledge by the way). and if it goes wandering around then we just string him tomorrow. or if he fails to kill then maybe we get information about rbs in the game (additional information that is nice to have). and if he doesn't get redirected we can just use him to get rid of lurkers along the way. that way we can focus on the participants who are the most scummy as opposed to deciding on the whole lurker stuff. and the first time that he kills a non lurker we string him. sorry puffy but at this point your most useful impact, if you live (which i kind of doubt), is going to be helpful busboy.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:25:05 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Sept 17, 2010 15:25:05 GMT -5
i also am inclined to let puffy dude live. i mean depending on what happens during the Night then we get some information. if his target goes kaput then most likely scum don't have a redirector (good knowledge by the way). and if it goes wandering around then we just string him tomorrow. or if he fails to kill then maybe we get information about rbs in the game (additional information that is nice to have). and if he doesn't get redirected we can just use him to get rid of lurkers along the way. that way we can focus on the participants who are the most scummy as opposed to deciding on the whole lurker stuff. and the first time that he kills a non lurker we string him. sorry puffy but at this point your most useful impact, if you live (which i kind of doubt), is going to be helpful busboy. I'd generally agree with that. Killing non-participants is a perfectly good strategy for an sk/compulsory vig. At the start of the game a compulsory vig does result in addtional information for Town - assuming he fesses up on who the target is/was. The flip side however, is that he is more likely to hit town than scum - so it would be unlikely that scum would be pushing for his lynch.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:29:34 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 17, 2010 15:29:34 GMT -5
Hey, being a helpful busboy is preferable at this point to being the accent to somebody's hot chocolate...
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:33:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 15:33:53 GMT -5
Hey, being a helpful busboy is preferable at this point to being the accent to somebody's hot chocolate... ok, folks this is it. no way in hell do you let this kind of poster die on Day 1. fuck, kill me toNight for all i care but this post rocks the Day. problem is that you have to come up with another manana.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 17, 2010 15:47:42 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Sept 17, 2010 15:47:42 GMT -5
and nordstrum you can't honestly think that if i was vote charging myself that i would be doing it on a one off?
jeebus, monkey brains and bananas.
|
|