|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 15:15:40 GMT -5
If it continues to serve in lieu of anything to do specifically with this game (as it arguably does thus far), then yes. Otherwise ... *shrug*. OK, I'll comment on everything else that has ahppened so far: 1. Regarding Scooby Snacks. I think it's prudent to not comment at this point. I will point out that we will know that actual transfers have occurred, since Julie has indicated that we cannot fake transferring Scooby Snacks. 2. Regarding editing posts. Don't do it. It's against the rules. 3. Regarding vote ties and stuff. I think the mod has made clear the answer. 4. Regarding Bills assumption about 4-5 Scum. I agree that it seems reasonable. I'd bet on the 5 side unless we have potent 3rd party players or odd mechanics that benefit the Scum. I tend to think high anyway, just to be on the safe side. 5. Regarding the location of Daphne. I think it's probably best not to comment because that way the Scum won't know if I know where she is or not. 6. Peeker being a Vig scares me. 7. I agree with Renata that Romanic and guiri are very good players. 8. Regarding if I trust or suspect people to start with. Basically, it's a relative matter for me. Everyone starts with about the same level of trust from me. As the game progresses, that changes, and I tend to vote for the person I trust the least/suspect the most. 9. septimus post 36 is hinky. He seems to want to be considered a poor player. 10. Our new players have said a few things that make it apparent that they are following along. I'd like them to continue commenting as the Day progresses, even if they are just quetions. 11. I still am uncertain why Captain Pinkies claimed his name. I think he's been asked directly. I don't think he's answered. 12. I am not a lyncher for Captain Pinkies or anyone at all. 13. I like post 89 for its insight. 14. I've responded to Suburban's vote for me. 15. Post 114 puzzled me. Why would Archangel be planting reasons for Captain's name claim? And why such an oddball reason? How did that occur to her? Does she really believe that he had a reason to claim his name? Some of this is a repeat as I've already commented on them. Did I miss anything that has occurred?
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Mar 28, 2011 15:17:45 GMT -5
Thanks for the Snack, peeker. I hope to enjoy eating it spend it townishly. Am I the only person who thinks Cap might have name-claimed because he has to find someone? Which in itself is neither an indication of being town or scum.... If he's trying to make such a connection, I'd think town is more likely than scum, since scum presumably know each other and are already communicating ("Players with access to official off-site boards may post strategy at any time during the Day or Night"); a game mechanic where a Townie and Scummie share such a name connection would seem odd. Googling I see a Neville character in a Scooby episode, but no Strangeways. First response from Googling Scooby "Strangeways" is a forbidden page: strangewayseroticizing.co.cc/
|
|
|
Post by julie on Mar 28, 2011 15:21:42 GMT -5
For the record, I didn't google the name "Strangeways" before using it, so any connection to anything you find is coincidence. Forbidden erotic coincidence, but coincidence nonetheless!
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 28, 2011 15:23:24 GMT -5
i did not expect sniping and to my mind illogical voting. well, i'm in deep in it now. It's Day One. Sniping and Illogical Voting are what we have to go on, based on past experience.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 28, 2011 15:26:42 GMT -5
Also: Posts Ed mentions but doesn't quote for god only knows what reasons: Post #36 Confirming. I've played before, but have never successfully detected a single scum, so think I should be counted among the newbies until that happens. I'm not sure I read the evil intent in here that Ed does, but lord knows I've been wrong about what's facetious and what's intended to make people think less of a particular player. Post #89 You know, at this point, I would not answer questions over if you need scooby snacks for any special purpose.
Also, no idea what the snacks are for. Just posting as I go to note that you have suggested that no one answer a question and then answered it. Why would you do this, if you thought it was a bad idea? Now, here, I do agree with Ed, and would like to ask that Paranoia please answer storyteller's question.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 28, 2011 15:40:05 GMT -5
An easy or safe day 1 lynch? If he participates more because of the vote, then it's a pro-Town vote.If he still fails to participate, then I'd honestly rather have a Vigilante shoot him. I doubt he'd get lynched anyway on Day 1. In Holy Grail mafia he was voted D1 for lurking. As you show in your WoW, he actually made some contributions to the game and even bread-crumbed his character and role (disguised as drinks recipes). However the vote and pressure didn't make much of a difference to his D2 play, he got an automatic vote D3 for not participating D2, posted once D3 and then was vigged N3. Voting him for non-participation doesn't seem to make much of a difference so an alternative approach may be more productive. Will you be voting him pre-emptively as long as he survives in the game? I assume he's aware that he can request to be subbed out if he's unable to play so, barring an intentional ploy to mess with the rest of the players and prevent some other willing player from signing up, I'd like to think that, when he signs up, he actually intends to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 28, 2011 15:41:58 GMT -5
Did Julie just reveal that Pinkies told the truth about his role name?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 28, 2011 15:47:23 GMT -5
Did Julie just reveal that Pinkies told the truth about his role name? I don't think so. She mentioned the Hotel Strangeways being haunted by the ghost of Ethel Strangeways way back in the setup thread. I think she was just responding to Septimus' fruitless search for 'Strangeways' in the Scooby Doo canon
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 28, 2011 15:50:40 GMT -5
All right, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 15:50:44 GMT -5
An easy or safe day 1 lynch? If he participates more because of the vote, then it's a pro-Town vote. If he still fails to participate, then I'd honestly rather have a Vigilante shoot him. I doubt he'd get lynched anyway on Day 1. I put him on notice that his previous behavior (or lack thereof) won't go unnoticed. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Are you saying you want a compulsory vig to go after him? Or any kind of vig?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 16:03:29 GMT -5
If it continues to serve in lieu of anything to do specifically with this game (as it arguably does thus far), then yes. Otherwise ... *shrug*. OK, I'll comment on everything else that has ahppened so far: {SNIP} 15. Post 114 puzzled me. Why would Archangel be planting reasons for Captain's name claim? And why such an oddball reason? How did that occur to her? Does she really believe that he had a reason to claim his name? Some of this is a repeat as I've already commented on them. Did I miss anything that has occurred? I just came off a game where a 3rd party "traitor" had to find scum. If he found them correctly, he got to join scum (and he did). I've also seen games where 3rd party has to identify a certain element of town and if they do, they get to join town. And other games where (town) masons had to find each other. I'm not "planting" a reason, I'm speculating.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Mar 28, 2011 16:20:56 GMT -5
For the record, I didn't google the name "Strangeways" before using it, so any connection to anything you find is coincidence. Forbidden erotic coincidence, but coincidence nonetheless! Well Hotel Strangeways is a colloquial name for Strangeways Prison in the UK lol
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 16:23:44 GMT -5
Will you be voting him pre-emptively as long as he survives in the game? Nope, I'll vote for whomever In trust the least/suspect the most. As of right now,it's pretty close to a tie between everyone, so I'll stick with my prod vote.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 16:24:35 GMT -5
If he participates more because of the vote, then it's a pro-Town vote. If he still fails to participate, then I'd honestly rather have a Vigilante shoot him. I doubt he'd get lynched anyway on Day 1. I put him on notice that his previous behavior (or lack thereof) won't go unnoticed. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Are you saying you want a compulsory vig to go after him? Or any kind of vig? I think it's beneficial when Vigilantes remove players whose participation fails to leave a significant record, barring other more obvious targets.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 16:27:21 GMT -5
Are you saying you want a compulsory vig to go after him? Or any kind of vig? I think it's beneficial when Vigilantes remove players whose participation fails to leave a significant record, barring other more obvious targets. Okay. Could you explain how and why? Because even a total no-show counts in town numbers. And a vig removing them leaves no record (except for the indication that we do or do not have a vig) while a lynch does leave a record.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 16:27:56 GMT -5
NETA: I mean a total no-show who's town still counts in town numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Joanie on Mar 28, 2011 16:32:44 GMT -5
Wow! I have missed a lot. I thought I could pop in and catch up but the troops are hungry here. I'll read up and come back to comment tonight.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 16:36:53 GMT -5
NETA: I mean a total no-show who's town still counts in town numbers. How will we know if he's Town or not Town? Hopefully, at some point in the game, it will come down to confirmed Town vs unconfirmed Town. At that point, the more information we have about the unconfirmed the better. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that: 1. An investigator waste an investigation on a player who fails to participate? 2. We trust players who don't participate to be Town?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 17:33:15 GMT -5
NETA: I mean a total no-show who's town still counts in town numbers. How will we know if he's Town or not Town? Hopefully, at some point in the game, it will come down to confirmed Town vs unconfirmed Town. At that point, the more information we have about the unconfirmed the better. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that: 1. An investigator waste an investigation on a player who fails to participate? 2. We trust players who don't participate to be Town? We won't know. But if he's dead town we're down a number, which is what bothers me. I think I understand what you're saying now, though. If he's dead scum then it's preferable to have him dead, and we can't just put a non-participant to the side and hope he's town. No, I wasn't saying either of those things. I was saying I think it is preferable to lynch him and have a voting record than have a vig kill him and learn nothing other than whether he's town or scum.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 28, 2011 18:06:28 GMT -5
We won't know. But if he's dead town we're down a number, which is what bothers me. <snipped> and while i unwilling to make the leap that ed has made purely because of recent game behavior (see even i can learn lightfoot) i would certainly rather be down a non participatory townie than a participatory townie.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 28, 2011 18:32:56 GMT -5
My experience is that a vig is neutral to beneficial if they target low volume posters. In terms of lynching, I'm not sure that it's always a good idea to go after lurkers lynchwise but a vig can cut down on the extra baggage town is lugging around.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 19:12:24 GMT -5
No, I wasn't saying either of those things. I was saying I think it is preferable to lynch him and have a voting record than have a vig kill him and learn nothing other than whether he's town or scum. So you think we should lynch non-participants rather than Vig them? Here are the drawbacks: 1. We waste a Day lynching a player who could be Vigged 2. We actually have no voting record, because we've just lynched on policy. The votes weren't for scummy behavior. So the votes tell us nothing about the players who voted.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 19:13:26 GMT -5
My experience is that a vig is neutral to beneficial if they target low volume posters. In terms of lynching, I'm not sure that it's always a good idea to go after lurkers lynchwise but a vig can cut down on the extra baggage town is lugging around. I agree, it is almost always preferable to have a Vig take care of the non-participants rather than to waste a lynch on them and destroy the voting record as Archangel is advocating.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 28, 2011 19:23:20 GMT -5
This is all relatively hypothetical however. I don't claim any supra-gamethread knowledge about the existence of a vig. This is just my past experience talking. The danger with ignoring nonparticipants and not lynching them is that scum can then not participate, hang low and pop back up again when it's too late. But if you lynch the nonplayers on policy, you may have to wade through several townies before getting the scum while not making any headway on the talkers. A vig who targets low volume posters puts the fear of god in scum and sends them into the light where we can see them while the lazy townies are still gonna hang back.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 19:42:42 GMT -5
My experience is that a vig is neutral to beneficial if they target low volume posters. In terms of lynching, I'm not sure that it's always a good idea to go after lurkers lynchwise but a vig can cut down on the extra baggage town is lugging around. I agree, it is almost always preferable to have a Vig take care of the non-participants rather than to waste a lynch on them and destroy the voting record as Archangel is advocating. I'm not advocating destroying the voting record. I see your point about wasting a day, and people lynching on policy.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 28, 2011 19:46:33 GMT -5
This is all relatively hypothetical however. I don't claim any supra-gamethread knowledge about the existence of a vig. This is just my past experience talking. The danger with ignoring nonparticipants and not lynching them is that scum can then not participate, hang low and pop back up again when it's too late. But if you lynch the nonplayers on policy, you may have to wade through several townies before getting the scum while not making any headway on the talkers. A vig who targets low volume posters puts the fear of god in scum and sends them into the light where we can see them while the lazy townies are still gonna hang back. That last bit makes sense, Inner Stickler. I see where you guys are coming from now.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Mar 28, 2011 19:54:19 GMT -5
Do I have to be? You placed a vote on someone based on another game. That is really weird. dangerous territory for you maha. very very dangerous. Why? Because I have voted you elsewhere for being more talkative? That is at least based on what you did in the current game. Not the same. I guess I see ed's point(sort of), but it still strikes me as weird. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Mar 28, 2011 21:08:29 GMT -5
OK, I'll comment on everything else that has ahppened so far: 1. Regarding Scooby Snacks. I think it's prudent to not comment at this point. I will point out that we will know that actual transfers have occurred, since Julie has indicated that we cannot fake transferring Scooby Snacks. 2. Regarding editing posts. Don't do it. It's against the rules. 3. Regarding vote ties and stuff. I think the mod has made clear the answer. 4. Regarding Bills assumption about 4-5 Scum. I agree that it seems reasonable. I'd bet on the 5 side unless we have potent 3rd party players or odd mechanics that benefit the Scum. I tend to think high anyway, just to be on the safe side. 5. Regarding the location of Daphne. I think it's probably best not to comment because that way the Scum won't know if I know where she is or not. 6. Peeker being a Vig scares me. 7. I agree with Renata that Romanic and guiri are very good players. 8. Regarding if I trust or suspect people to start with. Basically, it's a relative matter for me. Everyone starts with about the same level of trust from me. As the game progresses, that changes, and I tend to vote for the person I trust the least/suspect the most. 9. septimus post 36 is hinky. He seems to want to be considered a poor player. 10. Our new players have said a few things that make it apparent that they are following along. I'd like them to continue commenting as the Day progresses, even if they are just quetions. 11. I still am uncertain why Captain Pinkies claimed his name. I think he's been asked directly. I don't think he's answered. 12. I am not a lyncher for Captain Pinkies or anyone at all. 13. I like post 89 for its insight. 14. I've responded to Suburban's vote for me. 15. Post 114 puzzled me. Why would Archangel be planting reasons for Captain's name claim? And why such an oddball reason? How did that occur to her? Does she really believe that he had a reason to claim his name? Some of this is a repeat as I've already commented on them. Did I miss anything that has occurred? I am quoting this post because it is a nice template of things to comment on and because one comment in particular seems curious to me. In regards to Scooby Snacks, I will wait at least one Day/Night cycle before I start inquiring about them (assuming nothing comes up in the meantime). I would also estimate 4 to 5 scum. I would not be surprised with a couple of 3rd party players. If there are then I think 4 scum is more likely. I would also like Captain Pinkies to explain why he named claim. Regarding Ed's "harassment" of Pinkie over his non-participation, I can't really fault Ed. Certain types of play are so anti-town that it can be justified to try to remove those players as soon as possible. I have played with Captain Pinkies very little, so I don't know if the situation is as bad as Ed says or not, but if it is, I can't blame him. That said, it doesn't win any townie points for Ed from me. He had already made a comment to Pinkies in the sign up thread, and could easily have felt that that going after Pinkies was a safe play. The comment I find curious is the following: "5. Regarding the location of Daphne. I think it's probably best not to comment because that way the Scum won't know if I know where she is or not." Ed, why do you think scum need to worry about whether you know where Daphne is or not? This comment just seems to me to possibly contain a bit too much knowledge about the scum team's operations. I think this is enough for an early Day 1 vote. Vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Mar 28, 2011 21:30:32 GMT -5
Regarding Ed's "harassment" of Pinkie over his non-participation, I can't really fault Ed. Certain types of play are so anti-town that it can be justified to try to remove those players as soon as possible. I have played with Captain Pinkies very little, so I don't know if the situation is as bad as Ed says or not, but if it is, I can't blame him. That said, it doesn't win any townie points for Ed from me. He had already made a comment to Pinkies in the sign up thread, and could easily have felt that that going after Pinkies was a safe play. OK, caught up. That didn't take long. Observations: 2. Pinkies name claim is weird. Everybody: that fact that you have information does not, in and of itself, mean you need to share it. Gah! Again, though, I'm not sure I can see underlying Scum motivation - just an excess of enthusiasm, which I think could signify Town or Scum. Hmm... weird?? See I thought all information is good. And since this is day 1, and I am getting flack for not providing value, I thought I would share something verse nothing. Even with a power role there is very little information that can add value without damaging town. My name claim is a beign way to contrib value. At the very least shows my intention of adding value to the game. The last several games I have gotten a lot of flack over how I play. So much, that it really turns me off from the engaging in the game. Over the past 6-8 months I've had a number of things on my plate that that were more important than in depth contributions to games. And honestly I haven't had the energy to dig in like I like. This is the reason I have not played in a while. I have reasons to play the way I play and I don't make excuses for it. In the previous game, the low posts was a strategy I was trying. As it worked out it didn't provide the value I was hoping for. <== passes a round of sex with the captain Ingredients 3/4 oz. Rum, spiced (Captain Morgan's) 3/4 oz. Schnapps, peach 3/4 oz. Vodka (Fill with, 1/2) Cranberry Juice (Fill with, 1/2) Orange Juice Mixing Instructions Pour all ingredients into glass over ice.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 28, 2011 21:32:37 GMT -5
The comment I find curious is the following: 5. Regarding the location of Daphne. I think it's probably best not to comment because that way the Scum won't know if I know where she is or not." Ed, why do you think scum need to worry about whether you know where Daphne is or not? This comment just seems to me to possibly contain a bit too much knowledge about the scum team's operations. I think this is enough for an early Day 1 vote. Vote Special Ed
way to take things out of context. I was commenting on everything that has happened in the game. Some people spoke about the whereabouts of Daphne. I chose to note the comment and not add to it for I don't see it benefiting Town and potentially hurting Town. See, other people were talking about it. I was commenting on their comments. Actually, more to the point, I was pointing out that other people were commenting on it and indicating that such comments are not beneficial. So, see my options were: 1. Comment on if I know where Daphne is. 1a. Perhaps I do know. Now Scum know that I know. Does it help Town? No. Can it help Scum? Maybe. 1b. Perhaps I don't know. If it's important to Scum then they know I don't know. 2. Not comment on if I know. I chose 2. And you voted for me. ~~~ So, I'm going to chalk this up as a "lynch the loud" vote masquerading as a PIS vote. You've posted, contributed almost nothing to the game, found an innocuous statement, twisted it and used it to vote for a person who already has a vote. Now that's kinda Scummy.
|
|