|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 2, 2010 9:22:52 GMT -5
So we're giving people passes on things because they've done it before? Look, I'd lynch Pleo every Day 1 as a matter of routine if it would make him stop this dumb day 1 claiming. Just because you've made your peace with his antics doesn't mean everyone else should.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 2, 2010 9:27:11 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Pleonast -
Pleo, I really disagree with this business where you do something and then tell people to go read previous games for your reasoning. We're playing this game, which in the fullness of time will occupy an enormous amount of time for reading and analyzing. Having to go look up a previous game, possibly on another site, with limited understanding and/or memory of the context, is an unreasonable burden and takes time away from concentrating on the current situation.
That is definitively anti-Town, and I would politely request that you stop doing it. If you refuse to offer justification for something you do, then refuse, and accept the consequences of that refusal. As far as I'm concerned, if you haven't said it in this game, then you haven't said it.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 2, 2010 9:29:18 GMT -5
So we're giving people passes on things because they've done it before? Look, I'd lynch Pleo every Day 1 as a matter of routine if it would make him stop this dumb day 1 claiming. Just because you've made your peace with his antics doesn't mean everyone else should. Is this directed to my post? Because that's pretty definitely not what I said. I said we should "give Pleo a pass" because there's nothing to "give him a pass" for - his action, while bad strategy in my opinion, does not constitute a Scum tell. It makes equally little sense no matter what his alignment (unless he's something exotic, like a Jester or a Bomb, but I'm not going to worry about those possibilities absent a good reason to worry).
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 2, 2010 9:35:11 GMT -5
No, I was just being slow in typing and not refreshing to make sure nobody else had talked. It's a response to Rysto who seems to be telling mahaloth to just ignore it because it's Pleo, an attitude I find less than helpful.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:04:45 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 2, 2010 10:04:45 GMT -5
No, I was just being slow in typing and not refreshing to make sure nobody else had talked. It's a response to Rysto who seems to be telling mahaloth to just ignore it because it's Pleo, an attitude I find less than helpful. In Pleo's case this is a null tell. Pleo claiming early literally tells us nothing about his alignment, therefore it should be ignored.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:09:50 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 2, 2010 10:09:50 GMT -5
Mahaloth, you don't seem to be listening when people have told you that Pleonast has done this before. As Town. Like it or not, this is what he does. Yeah, I did hear it and I mentioned it. I asked why he gets a pass for it. I am calling his bluff this time.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:11:39 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 2, 2010 10:11:39 GMT -5
Again, and I emphasize this.
I have not settled entirely on Pleo for my vote toDay.
It's a Day One vote. I have to go with what I see as the best possible case and for me, that is Pleo right now.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:15:58 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 2, 2010 10:15:58 GMT -5
He gets a pass for it because it's a null tell. Lynching someone over a null tell is, quite frankly, idiotic.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:23:04 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 2, 2010 10:23:04 GMT -5
He gets a pass for it because it's a null tell. Lynching someone over a null tell is, quite frankly, idiotic. It's not necessarily a null tell to duck and run from a request for an explanation.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:31:59 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 2, 2010 10:31:59 GMT -5
I agree that Pleonast's refusal to explain his reasoning is extremely unhelpful. But again, this is a recurring pattern for him.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 10:47:01 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 2, 2010 10:47:01 GMT -5
OK, I think I've explained my thoughts pretty well on Pleo for now. I feel like only a few of us are talking, though, and I hate to let the quiet people slide by. When I get a chance, I wanna see who is "here but not here" and prod them a bit.
Are we all participating?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 11:11:48 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 2, 2010 11:11:48 GMT -5
I called out Pleo for his early claim a few games ago, and got pretty much the same reaction that's being given here: "That's just Pleo being Pleo, just ignore him". I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, but it is true that it's just "Pleo being Pleo" and it's a null tell as far as that goes.
I don't generally like lynching people for non-participation this early in the game. Real life happens, and some things are more important than posting in a Mafia thread. But after too much more time, I think it becomes necessary to remove the people that are not going to participate; however, I'd rather do it via substitution that lynching if the mod allows.
I have no problem at all lynching lurkers. The problem at this stage is that it's tough to tell who's 'lurking' and who's just not posting much yet because there's not much to discuss.
I'm considering casting a vote for Pleonast, the reasoning being this: I have no read on who's Scum, so any lynch vote at this point is a shot in the dark. Since Pleo has claimed Vanilla, (and has not claimed Town) he's a 'safe' target in as far as it minimizes the risk to the Town. I'd rather lose a Vanilla Townie at this point than a second Town Power. And there's always the chance that he's Vanilla Scum, and just forgot to mention that second part. I also have to admit that the fact that his 'early claim' strategy bugs me, and that he cast an early vote on me for a crappy reason, do color my opinion of him. But I would like something more concrete to base a vote on.
I'm going to try to finish a reread of the thread so far to see if anyone sticks out as a better candidate before voting.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 11:22:47 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 2, 2010 11:22:47 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Pleonast - Pleo, I really disagree with this business where you do something and then tell people to go read previous games for your reasoning. We're playing this game, which in the fullness of time will occupy an enormous amount of time for reading and analyzing. Having to go look up a previous game, possibly on another site, with limited understanding and/or memory of the context, is an unreasonable burden and takes time away from concentrating on the current situation. That is definitively anti-Town, and I would politely request that you stop doing it. If you refuse to offer justification for something you do, then refuse, and accept the consequences of that refusal. As far as I'm concerned, if you haven't said it in this game, then you haven't said it. I did actually go back and look at the wrestling game that started twice and Pleo claimed Day 1 both starts, but was still unable to determine why he claimed. But I agree it's aggravating.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:02:41 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 2, 2010 12:02:41 GMT -5
Upon a quick reread of the thread, there are a couple people who are sticking out as 'lurkers'; that is, they seem to be participating in the discussion, but they aren't really saying anything.
NAF1138. 6 posts. 3 of them talk about how we should talk about mass claims, but he never actually gives an opinion on them. The other 3 posts are general Mafia strategy. Nothing pertaining to this game in particular.
storyteller0910. 5 posts. 1 during Night 0, a confirmation of PM. 4 during Day 1. 3 of those he talks about Pleonast, and 1 he says hello to peeker. No discussion of anything else.
vote NAF1138
For prodding the rest of us to talk but never actually giving any opinions of his own, so we have nothing to judge him against.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:12:54 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 2, 2010 12:12:54 GMT -5
OK, I think I've explained my thoughts pretty well on Pleo for now. I feel like only a few of us are talking, though, and I hate to let the quiet people slide by. When I get a chance, I wanna see who is "here but not here" and prod them a bit. Are we all participating? I don't know, are we? Same thing as I said to Ulla last night (or implied, anyway, can't remember my wording): if you want to make this kind of argument, name names.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:15:59 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 2, 2010 12:15:59 GMT -5
vote NAF1138For prodding the rest of us to talk but never actually giving any opinions of his own, so we have nothing to judge him against. Huh, really? I guess that's fair. What would you like to get my opinion on? I'm an open book, I just haven't had a lot of time to play. Take a look at when those posts were made and you will notice that most of them are spaced fairly far apart. You will also notice, if you actually read them, that they mostly follow a single conversation thread. Considering your last post though, I think this is a strange reason to vote for me. I plan to do an actual close read later today, maybe on my lunch break, maybe after my daughter goes to bed and give a rundown on where I think we are and place a vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:18:31 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 2, 2010 12:18:31 GMT -5
I called out Pleo for his early claim a few games ago, and got pretty much the same reaction that's being given here: "That's just Pleo being Pleo, just ignore him". I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, but it is true that it's just "Pleo being Pleo" and it's a null tell as far as that goes. I don't generally like lynching people for non-participation this early in the game. Real life happens, and some things are more important than posting in a Mafia thread. But after too much more time, I think it becomes necessary to remove the people that are not going to participate; however, I'd rather do it via substitution that lynching if the mod allows. I have no problem at all lynching lurkers. The problem at this stage is that it's tough to tell who's 'lurking' and who's just not posting much yet because there's not much to discuss. I'm considering casting a vote for Pleonast, the reasoning being this: I have no read on who's Scum, so any lynch vote at this point is a shot in the dark. Since Pleo has claimed Vanilla, (and has not claimed Town) he's a 'safe' target in as far as it minimizes the risk to the Town. I'd rather lose a Vanilla Townie at this point than a second Town Power. And there's always the chance that he's Vanilla Scum, and just forgot to mention that second part. I also have to admit that the fact that his 'early claim' strategy bugs me, and that he cast an early vote on me for a crappy reason, do color my opinion of him. But I would like something more concrete to base a vote on. I'm going to try to finish a reread of the thread so far to see if anyone sticks out as a better candidate before voting. I think you just made peeker's head explode. But your vote for NAF is decent.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:26:47 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Dec 2, 2010 12:26:47 GMT -5
Pleo, I really disagree with this business where you do something and then tell people to go read previous games for your reasoning. We're playing this game, which in the fullness of time will occupy an enormous amount of time for reading and analyzing. Having to go look up a previous game, possibly on another site, with limited understanding and/or memory of the context, is an unreasonable burden and takes time away from concentrating on the current situation. That is definitively anti-Town, and I would politely request that you stop doing it. If you refuse to offer justification for something you do, then refuse, and accept the consequences of that refusal. As far as I'm concerned, if you haven't said it in this game, then you haven't said it. I agree with what you're saying here. I do not like meta-gaming in any form, and reference like this to previous games qualifies. But let us look more carefully at what I've done this game. I responded to the "why" question in post N0.92 with "I don't feel it's beneficial to discuss why I made the claim." That is, I have refused to offer justification. I have not tried to justify myself by referring to past games. I can see how I could've been misinterpreted in post N0.168 with "If you're interested, go back and read the previous games. I answered the 'why' question truthfully. And you can also see why I'm not bothering to answer it now." That is not intended to be an in-game justification, but rather a way for the curious to get some insight into my thinking. Note that I reiterate that I am refusing to respond to the question. So I affirm your sentiment but deny that I qualify. At first glance, a name claim doesn't seem like it would give much information to town or to scum. I am of the opinion that the names will not have any relation to role or faction. So it might be better to avoid that distraction. There's actually very good evidence that that's true -- Hierophant does not exactly call to mind "tracker". Name claims should not even be on the table. This logic (of both above posters) escapes me. If names do not give much information, then there is little risk to town in revealing. 1. Pleonast just about literally always does this (claims early). I disagree with it in a strategic sense. He's tried the same approach in more games than I can count, and it has never, ever, ever worked or accrued any kind of benefit to his team (usually Town). If he is Town Vanilla, he has dramatically increased the chance that he himself will be mislynched while narrowing the pool in which power roles can hide. If he is a Town power role and is lying, he has guaranteed his own mislynch at some point down the line. If he is Scum or third party, he has drawn attention to himself that neither Scum nor third-party would typically want. Thus, this sort of early, unprompted claim makes no sense at all from either a Town or a non-Town perspective. I view it more as some kind of social experiment that Pleonast is attempting than as an actual game action. Null tell. This is exactly the kind of thinking based on risk rather than reward that I think is counterproductive to town.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:32:30 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Dec 2, 2010 12:32:30 GMT -5
Did I miss the post with your vote on another player? btw, pleo where is your fracking vote, btw? I hate using the "skimming is a scum tell" canard, so I'll simply mock you. There was exactly one vote in the first 90 or so posts, and you missed it.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:48:23 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 2, 2010 12:48:23 GMT -5
This logic (of both above posters) escapes me. If names do not give much information, then there is little risk to town in revealing. Little risk and zero reward, so why waste the effort?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:57:38 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 2, 2010 12:57:38 GMT -5
I think you just made peeker's head explode. In that case, I consider it to have been a successful post ;D
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 12:59:21 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Dec 2, 2010 12:59:21 GMT -5
This logic (of both above posters) escapes me. If names do not give much information, then there is little risk to town in revealing. Little risk and zero reward, so why waste the effort? Little risk to town, but perhaps not little risk to scum. A mass name claim forces scum to commit to a name. That prevents them from making a more convenient claim in the future. It also gives a name investigator something to work against.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:03:00 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 2, 2010 13:03:00 GMT -5
D'oh! I posted this to the Night Zero thread first. Sorry, all: I'm going to Vote Suburban Plankton. It's due to a series of little things that don't mean a heck of a lot on their own, but taken together point towards a scum POV in my opinion. On a game related note...I think this statement This is not a normal Night Zero, someone will die. is assuming facts not in evidence. Unless Pleonast knows something the rest of us don't? But he's claiming vanilla, so by definition he knows nothing. Unless he does. Isn't this fun? Pleonast has discussed this one already, but I approach it from a different angle. This is a smudge, pure and simple. It's also a big reach: it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the scum will get to kill on a Night 0 that allows night actions. I don't like that Suburban went out of his way here to smudge another player for making a perfectly reasonable assumption. Well that sucks...sorry sachertorte... I pointed this one out already, but just to be explicit about it: my experience is that killers will often feel bad about killing another player, especially over a Night Zero kill that meant that the victim didn't get to participate at all. I'm considering casting a vote for Pleonast, the reasoning being this: I have no read on who's Scum, so any lynch vote at this point is a shot in the dark. Since Pleo has claimed Vanilla, (and has not claimed Town) he's a 'safe' target in as far as it minimizes the risk to the Town. I'd rather lose a Vanilla Townie at this point than a second Town Power. And there's always the chance that he's Vanilla Scum, and just forgot to mention that second part. I also have to admit that the fact that his 'early claim' strategy bugs me, and that he cast an early vote on me for a crappy reason, do color my opinion of him. But I would like something more concrete to base a vote on. This is the one that set off alarm bells in my head. Suburban has just finished saying that he doesn't find Pleonast scummy, and now he's trying to set himself up with a nice, plausibly deniable reason for keeping the Pleonast train running. I acknowledge that fact that he ended up not following this up with a vote, but I really really really don't like the fact that Suburban was even leaning towards continuing our first bandwagon with a vote with no reasoning behind it.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:05:24 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 2, 2010 13:05:24 GMT -5
Okay. Who fits that criterion so far? In this game? <snipped> well when i voted for story he hadn't posted squat so he certainly met the criteria, plus there are some other factors there. i guess now paranoia would kind of fit since he/she hasn't posted squat either. and i totally understand that rl gets in the way but i have a get real heartburn about folks that sign up and then don't even have 5 minutes to say stuff has occurred, be back later. ok, this is something i posited on another board. what other handles do folks go by when playing this game? i mean i just recently found out that a player who i assumed was a newb was actually a pretty experienced player. and it really would have changed my coloring of that person's posts had i known that. so i'll go first. i am peekercpa for ever and ever, amen (unless we are playing halloween and then i get first dibs on curious george). and, btw. unvote storyvote paranoiaa noob and a no poster. talk about cannon fodder. p.s. here's hoping that paranoia is an alias for pinkies.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:06:59 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 2, 2010 13:06:59 GMT -5
Little risk and zero reward, so why waste the effort? Little risk to town, but perhaps not little risk to scum. A mass name claim forces scum to commit to a name. That prevents them from making a more convenient claim in the future. It also gives a name investigator something to work against. I actually agree with Pleonast here in that a name claim in a game like this has nearly zero harm to Town. It probably won't harm Scum either, but it would lock them into the name part of their claim anyway. Can scum talk during Day in this game? Did the rules tell us?
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:08:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 2, 2010 13:08:51 GMT -5
Note that I reiterate that I am refusing to respond to the question. So I affirm your sentiment but deny that I qualify. Fair enough. I have no quibble with this. Well, I have a quibble with you refusing to justify your behavior - I wonder how you think we should play the game, if simply acting with no explanation at all is an acceptable - but I acknowledge the above as addressing the issue in my own post. I agree with this. As I say, I agree with you in principle, but not in this case. There is, in my opinion, no reward to your behavior. There is substantial risk to your team regardless of which team it is - that you will be mislynched as Town or lynched as Scum, that you will (if Town) narrow the pool in which power roles can hide. These are possible, even probable, outcomes of your choice to claim early. But, regardless of your alignment, there is no reward. Taking a risk with the expectation of a possible reward is laudable and a more interesting and probably more successful way to play. Taking a risk when experience has proven that it has never helped you or your team in any way since the first time you tried it is just mule-headed.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:10:11 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 2, 2010 13:10:11 GMT -5
Sorry for the mule thing, Renata. :-)
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:16:34 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 2, 2010 13:16:34 GMT -5
This logic (of both above posters) escapes me. If names do not give much information, then there is little risk to town in revealing. Little risk and zero reward, so why waste the effort? i gotta agree here pleo. if there is "not ... much information...." to be achieved but there is, i assume from your post, an aknowledged potential risk then what would be the point at this time. i certainly don't have the information that would let me evaluate a plus or minus to town. however, scum could certainly have shared information about names/cards/whatever and be able to triangulate much more knowledgeably based on that information than town. even if the conclusion is that it doesn't mean jack.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:21:00 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 2, 2010 13:21:00 GMT -5
He gets a pass for it because it's a null tell. Lynching someone over a null tell is, quite frankly, idiotic. But it would make me happy. Especially because while you may feel it doesn't tell you anything about his alignment, it's a huge distraction, c.f. every freaking game he's been in since he started this and how much of Day 1 was spent talking about his stupid ploy. It's confusing for newbies because he's flying in the face of acceptable strategy and not bothering to tell anyone why, it's frustrating for more experienced players who would really like to play mafia and it hasn't helped Pleo except make people not like him as much. In my opinion, if he really wanted to help town, he would stop doing it because it's just kicking up dirt and making it harder to find scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Dec 2, 2010 13:38:10 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 2, 2010 13:38:10 GMT -5
I'm going to Vote Suburban Plankton. It's due to a series of little things that don't mean a heck of a lot on their own, but taken together point towards a scum POV in my opinion. On a game related note...I think this statementis assuming facts not in evidence. Unless Pleonast knows something the rest of us don't? But he's claiming vanilla, so by definition he knows nothing. Unless he does. Isn't this fun? Pleonast has discussed this one already, but I approach it from a different angle. This is a smudge, pure and simple. It's also a big reach: it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the scum will get to kill on a Night 0 that allows night actions. I don't like that Suburban went out of his way here to smudge another player for making a perfectly reasonable assumption. As I pointed out earlier, at the time I thought it was a very unreasonable assumption, thus worthy of comment. After Pleonast replied to me, I saw where I had made my mistake. You may feel bad for killing other players when you're Scum. I don't. It's part of the game, and there's absolutely no reason to apologize. Where did I say I didn't find Pleonast scummy? All I had "just finished saying" about Pleonast was that his claim was a null-tell. That says nothing about whether I think he's Scum, Town, or Other, just that the fact that he claimed doesn't enter into the equation. As for me "leaning towards continuing our first bandwagon with a vote with no reasoning behind it": I gave three reasons why I was considering it. They're all there in the post you quoted. But in the end, I decided to go in a different direction for the moment.
|
|