Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 14:39:46 GMT -5
NETA: And two votes does not, IMO, a bandwagon make. Or is my vote count wrong? Well, I think you can make an argument that timing between votes, or lack thereof, can also play a role in a wagon. Something smells rotten in Denmark here.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 14:40:33 GMT -5
I want you to convince me that it is a Scum or PFK ability, and not a Town or third-party one. H O W
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Sept 10, 2013 14:52:05 GMT -5
So I guess right now there are three main categories of player to consider for the lynch: those with bad voting records, those that are absentee, and those that are noncontributive. I'd personally like to focus on the absentee kind first with the intention of roping them back into the game, then examining some of those folks (like me!) with bad votes when the absentees are contributing again. The reason I think that should take precedent (at this particular point in the game only!) is because people with bad records will only have more information about them a day from now, while the lurkers may be just as lurky down the line but with fewer living players will be more of a dead weight from a voting (and overrun) perspective. Time, again, is on the town's side, but only if we have players that will take advantage of it. My hope here isn't just to policy-lynch anyone for lurking, but rather to put pressure on them so they're forced to rejoin the game.
Noncontributive players, by contrast, are the group I'm least inclined to look at. Meeko, as the biggest exemplar of the group, is not really adding anything to the discussion with his focus on goofy voting and reluctance to comment on expressed suspicions or placed votes (aside from when they're all placed at once). It's definitely not pro-town play. But he's active and could presumably be counted on to help prevent a scum-lead vote swing, even if only passively because the scum know he's one more vote that could help quash their voting bloc. As such, I don't really think he, or other present-but-low-activity-or-contribution players are so much anti-town as just not actively aiding it, and are therefore not really priority when there are scummier players around.
So if the players with the worst voting records are me, cookies, patricia (I'm less inclined than swammerdami to let someone off the hook for a doc claim, especially when they didn't save a claimed investigator), and Paranoia, then who is the best choice therefrom for the lynch? Obviously from my perspective, I'm not it, but that relies totally on me knowing my role, which nobody else does; consequently, swammer's vote on me is genuinely pretty reasonable (although hunches and instincts is rarely a great case for changing anyone else's mind). We similarly know very little about Para and cookies, and so can't count on a role-related reason to guide the vote; patricia obviously can't be lynched today, so no point considering that too much. It has to come back to our actions and interactions, which is the best way to play anyway. Since none of us have successfully lynched scum, that gets a bit hard. None of the three of us stand out to me as having played particularly poorly or suspiciously, and the fact that Para and I both had busy weeks last week makes it difficult to make a thorough comparison. I feel like cookies, of the three of us, focused least on the revealed scum and PFK players, which makes her a pretty reasonable first choice for me out of the group, but any of our flips would be pretty informative. Obviously supporting a lynch against myself would be pointless, but I'd be pretty happy regardless of how it goes; if we can get Jaade sorted out, I'd support either lynch (but lobby, as mentioned, for cookies more than the other two of us). If anyone has any reason they think one of the three of us is a better choice (or even whether another player entirely is!) definitely say so; I'm certainly missing it, and it's rare that only one person misses something. Support the town! Voice your thoughts! Cast a vote! Convince me, basically.
fakeedit: a good way to start would be to explain why you're convinced it's scummy, Meeko. Just that a role like that existed once doesn't make it anti-town. Why do you think it is?
realedit: exampler is not a word, exemplar is. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Sept 10, 2013 15:08:42 GMT -5
I largely agree with Fruit_and_Garbage, and picked on him just as a way to get the ball rolling. By not picking from among the bad voters, Cookies attracts my suspicion: she doesn't want to misLynch one of my suspects and see the noose tighten further around her own neck. But I'll not move my vote yet: It's time for the Lurkers to comment.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 15:14:34 GMT -5
So I guess right now there are three main categories of player to consider for the lynch: those with bad voting records, those that are absentee, and those that are noncontributive. I'd personally like to focus on the absentee kind first with the intention of roping them back into the game, then examining some of those folks (like me!) with bad votes when the absentees are contributing again. The reason I think that should take precedent (at this particular point in the game only!) is because people with bad records will only have more information about them a day from now, while the lurkers may be just as lurky down the line but with fewer living players will be more of a dead weight from a voting (and overrun) perspective. Time, again, is on the town's side, but only if we have players that will take advantage of it. My hope here isn't just to policy-lynch anyone for lurking, but rather to put pressure on them so they're forced to rejoin the game. Noncontributive players, by contrast, are the group I'm least inclined to look at. Meeko, as the biggest exemplar of the group, is not really adding anything to the discussion with his focus on goofy voting and reluctance to comment on expressed suspicions or placed votes (aside from when they're all placed at once). It's definitely not pro-town play. But he's active and could presumably be counted on to help prevent a scum-lead vote swing, even if only passively because the scum know he's one more vote that could help quash their voting bloc. As such, I don't really think he, or other present-but-low-activity-or-contribution players are so much anti-town as just not actively aiding it, and are therefore not really priority when there are scummier players around. So if the players with the worst voting records are me, cookies, patricia (I'm less inclined than swammerdami to let someone off the hook for a doc claim, especially when they didn't save a claimed investigator), and Paranoia, then who is the best choice therefrom for the lynch? Obviously from my perspective, I'm not it, but that relies totally on me knowing my role, which nobody else does; consequently, swammer's vote on me is genuinely pretty reasonable (although hunches and instincts is rarely a great case for changing anyone else's mind). We similarly know very little about Para and cookies, and so can't count on a role-related reason to guide the vote; patricia obviously can't be lynched today, so no point considering that too much. It has to come back to our actions and interactions, which is the best way to play anyway. Since none of us have successfully lynched scum, that gets a bit hard. None of the three of us stand out to me as having played particularly poorly or suspiciously, and the fact that Para and I both had busy weeks last week makes it difficult to make a thorough comparison. I feel like cookies, of the three of us, focused least on the revealed scum and PFK players, which makes her a pretty reasonable first choice for me out of the group, but any of our flips would be pretty informative. Obviously supporting a lynch against myself would be pointless, but I'd be pretty happy regardless of how it goes; if we can get Jaade sorted out, I'd support either lynch (but lobby, as mentioned, for cookies more than the other two of us). If anyone has any reason they think one of the three of us is a better choice (or even whether another player entirely is!) definitely say so; I'm certainly missing it, and it's rare that only one person misses something. Support the town! Voice your thoughts! Cast a vote! Convince me, basically. fakeedit: a good way to start would be to explain why you're convinced it's scummy, Meeko. Just that a role like that existed once doesn't make it anti-town. Why do you think it is? realedit: exampler is not a word, exemplar is. Sheesh. I'm convinced. It's scummy because its happened, twice now. When does it stop being a joke?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Sept 10, 2013 15:22:34 GMT -5
I want you to convince me that it is a Scum or PFK ability, and not a Town or third-party one. H O W Soooooooooo you're focusing on someone for a supposed ability they may or may not have without actually offering any proof of why that ability would happen to be scummy in any way shape or form. Correct?
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Sept 10, 2013 15:23:48 GMT -5
That's not... really... an explanation. More of a reaffirmation of what you stated, which is pretty clear by now. If it's a powerful role, then crippling the user's voting ability for part of the game could be a pretty reasonable balancing measure: take away one town advantage for access to another. Lots of roles can appear on both sides of the alignment spectrum: jailers and roleblockers and investigators and trackers and lots more can go either way. Even a vig is just an SK with a different wincon. What is so inherently anti-town about the role (the only thing you can observe of which so far – if it even exists in this game – is that it requires lots of changing votes) that it outweighs in your mind texcat's otherwise supremely (for living players) town play?
Why?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Sept 10, 2013 15:26:21 GMT -5
Like Meeko, the reason you have votes on you right now is that you are being ridiculously reactive, attacking people for the silliest shit, and all in all appear to be distancing yourself from any other conversation. Like yeah sure okay you may feel texcat is scum but you're not actually offering any reasoning to the rest of us why she is scum. All you're doing is latching onto a possible ability she may have which even if it went off through multiple unvotes n' junk wouldn't tell us her alignment anyway.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 15:44:37 GMT -5
Soooooooooo you're focusing on someone for a supposed ability they may or may not have without actually offering any proof of why that ability would happen to be scummy in any way shape or form. Correct? Correct. Is this not how Mafia is played?
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Sept 10, 2013 15:51:09 GMT -5
N... No? Is that a joke?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Sept 10, 2013 16:10:01 GMT -5
Soooooooooo you're focusing on someone for a supposed ability they may or may not have without actually offering any proof of why that ability would happen to be scummy in any way shape or form. Correct? Correct. Is this not how Mafia is played? Okay, apart from this Has texcat actually done anything you consider scummy?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 16:32:50 GMT -5
Correct. Is this not how Mafia is played? Okay, apart from this Has texcat actually done anything you consider scummy? Multiple votes. Can't sleep so I'll be around. Whaddya want to talk about meeko. There was a recent game, a batman themed game iirc, where a role extra abilities once the player voted for everyone. That player did just that, rapid fire voting and unvoting each player, including himself, in one post. I wonder if Texcat doesn't have a similar mechanic.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 16:34:41 GMT -5
Then I'm lost. Explain how a player can prove something in mafia.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 10, 2013 16:51:51 GMT -5
Come on, Meeko. You're a better player than this.
Players have exhibited multi-voting behaviors in the past. I honestly don't remember if those players were Scummy or not. What do you think the multi-voting might allow Texcat to do? Is she manipulating the vote, somehow? Does more than one of those votes count? Is she gaining some Night action?
You can't prove anything, but you can persuade, cajole, convince, and other synonyms. But when people ask for more information, even if it means re-stating your argument again for the ninetybillionth time, then re-state and -- if you can -- expand on that argument.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Sept 10, 2013 17:24:36 GMT -5
Enough, already. I have NO mechanic related to multi-voting. If I had a mechanic related to multi-voting I would have started it on D1 when people were throwing votes around like crazy. I shan't do it again. Meeko, is there really nothing else scummy, peculiar, off, worthy of comment anywhere else in the game?
Meanwhile, back in the game, is SisC the first to claim to have received a recruitment offer? I feel certain that it was not the first recruitment offer made. Does this mean that the other recruitment offers were accepted, or merely not reported?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 10, 2013 17:32:40 GMT -5
I'm curious about the same thing, texcat: surely I'm not the only one?
OTOH, you have to admit I have a big fat target on myself for the Scums toNight if they don't have anyone else already picked out, what with turning them down and all.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Sept 10, 2013 17:42:19 GMT -5
Not every third party can be simply recruited you know. (see: Sinjin)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 10, 2013 17:46:44 GMT -5
Not every third party can be simply recruited you know. (see: Sinjin) That's certainly true -- though there was nothing in my PM about being "recruitable", so I don't think we can assume anything based on the chance that where she can choose to look like anyone she couldn't also be recruited permanently to Scum.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Sept 10, 2013 17:47:45 GMT -5
And lets expand on this.
If gnarly was anything like me he could have picked between town and scum (which I believe is highly likely), Sinjin can freely pick sides, and so on and so forth. If any of us were just straight survivors from the start then it's likely they could be recruited, or if they had weirdly different wincons like Pleos.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 10, 2013 18:01:16 GMT -5
Then I'm lost. Explain how a player can prove something in mafia. Wha? Aren't the same Meeko who was demanding that things somehow be proven before votes can be put down a game or two back? Methinks your pendulum doth swing too far in the other direction now. Would it make you feel better if everyone in the game multi-voted for everyone just in case Texcat's crazy scary multi-vote power can only be counter-acted by other multivotes? Hey, it's possible. Don't knock the tinfoil hat, sheeple! Here, I'll start. Unvote: Meeko Vote: Jaade Unvote: Jaade Vote: sinjin Unvote: sinjin Vote: scathach Unvote: scathach Vote: Paranoia Unvote: Paranoia Vote: Texcat Unvote: Texcat Vote: Dizzy Unvote: Dizzy Vote: SisterC Unvote: SisterC Vote: FG Unvote: FG Vote: Swammer Unvote: Swammer Vote: Meeko There. I even managed to remember not to vote for patricia just in case that will cause the jail to spontaneously explode in a mushroom cloud and kill us all.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 10, 2013 18:02:53 GMT -5
Whoops, forgot myself.
Unvote: Meeko Vote: Cookies Unvote: Cookies Vote: Meeko
I'm nothing if not thorough with my jokes.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 10, 2013 18:09:18 GMT -5
I pity those who are keeping vote spreadsheets.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Sept 10, 2013 19:28:00 GMT -5
LOL Sis, I keep trying to get a vote tally spreadsheet going, yet keep getting distracted. I have Day1 done and I feel like I missed some things and want to go back and re-do it! LOL Now I'm quite lost!
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 19:50:09 GMT -5
Come on, Meeko. You're a better player than this. Players have exhibited multi-voting behaviors in the past. I honestly don't remember if those players were Scummy or not. What do you think the multi-voting might allow Texcat to do? Is she manipulating the vote, somehow? Does more than one of those votes count? Is she gaining some Night action? You can't prove anything, but you can persuade, cajole, convince, and other synonyms. But when people ask for more information, even if it means re-stating your argument again for the ninetybillionth time, then re-state and -- if you can -- expand on that argument. I don't get this. You all just admitted I am right. And I still have votes on me. Bullshit and a half right here.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 19:50:52 GMT -5
Whoops, forgot myself. Unvote: Meeko Vote: Cookies Unvote: Cookies Vote: MeekoI'm nothing if not thorough with my jokes. The irony here is not lost on me.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 19:55:32 GMT -5
currently out of that 'know nothing' list Scathach interests me the most right now. His interactions with cookies paint him in a fairly bad light so I suppose I wouldn't mind lynching him? My next choice would be meeko because he only seems interested in getting in confrontations for pointless things or with people who express suspicions of him buuuuuuut that's no guarantee either see: kidv. Jaade's... not actually offered a whole lot either. I'm not sure if I want to spend today lynching them or not though so w/e. Texcat is highly improbable to be scum. fruit&garbage is edging towards neutral right now for me. And cookies I'm not particularly interested in lynching as of this moment. soooo Vote: scathach Vote: Paranoia Cause this is the second time you've voted incorrectly. Unvote: Vote: Cookies Cause its only fair when I am going to Unvote: Vote: Meeko Cause he doesn't seem to be hunting for scum, only hunting for things he can pick on. So, you guys are mad at me for not making cases, you are mad at me FOR making cases. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Sept 10, 2013 19:57:24 GMT -5
Come on, Meeko. You're a better player than this. Players have exhibited multi-voting behaviors in the past. I honestly don't remember if those players were Scummy or not. What do you think the multi-voting might allow Texcat to do? Is she manipulating the vote, somehow? Does more than one of those votes count? Is she gaining some Night action? You can't prove anything, but you can persuade, cajole, convince, and other synonyms. But when people ask for more information, even if it means re-stating your argument again for the ninetybillionth time, then re-state and -- if you can -- expand on that argument. I don't get this. You all just admitted I am right. And I still have votes on me. Bullshit and a half right here. No one has admitted that you're right. What are you smoking tonight?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 19:59:45 GMT -5
Unvote: texcat Vote: Scathach
Every single one of us should be voting Jaade, but then again we are no longer playing Mafia.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Sept 10, 2013 20:03:02 GMT -5
Whoops, forgot myself. Unvote: Meeko Vote: Cookies Unvote: Cookies Vote: MeekoI'm nothing if not thorough with my jokes. The irony here is not lost on me. There is no irony here.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 10, 2013 20:04:22 GMT -5
I don't get this. You all just admitted I am right. And I still have votes on me. Bullshit and a half right here. No one has admitted that you're right. What are you smoking tonight? Come on, Meeko. You're a better player than this. Players have exhibited multi-voting behaviors in the past. I honestly don't remember if those players were Scummy or not. What do you think the multi-voting might allow Texcat to do? Is she manipulating the vote, somehow? Does more than one of those votes count? Is she gaining some Night action? You can't prove anything, but you can persuade, cajole, convince, and other synonyms. But when people ask for more information, even if it means re-stating your argument again for the ninetybillionth time, then re-state and -- if you can -- expand on that argument. Then I'm lost. Explain how a player can prove something in mafia. Looks like Siscoyote just admitted I was right: Explain how a player can prove something in mafia. You can't prove anything, but you can persuade, cajole, convince, and other synonyms. But when people ask for more information, even if it means re-stating your argument again for the ninetybillionth time, then re-state and -- if you can -- expand on that argument.[/quote]
|
|