|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 9, 2013 11:32:32 GMT -5
Vote: idleThe motivation to piece out, and self editorialize a role, and NOT offer explanations similar to the two reasons I gave above (The rationale to change named players from their assumed powers, and the distance between the characters of the novels and the characters as portrayed in the movie) can never be pro-town. I can argue both ways, but the ping remains. This is why I voted for him for sitting on the fence. He blatantly said he can make a case both ways but he chooses to see the bad. I don't understand this. If he could argue both ways then why vote at all, why not let it play out a bit?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 9, 2013 11:35:52 GMT -5
and my reason for voting Meeko has just disappeared.
Unvote: Unvote Meeko
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 9, 2013 11:56:52 GMT -5
Vote: idleThe motivation to piece out, and self editorialize a role, and NOT offer explanations similar to the two reasons I gave above (The rationale to change named players from their assumed powers, and the distance between the characters of the novels and the characters as portrayed in the movie) can never be pro-town. I can argue both ways, but the ping remains. This is why I voted for him for sitting on the fence. He blatantly said he can make a case both ways but he chooses to see the bad. I don't understand this. If he could argue both ways then why vote at all, why not let it play out a bit? There's nothing wrong with considering alternatives. And there's nothing wrong with elucidating ones' thoughts. In the end, we have to make a judgement call on which way the evidence is stronger. I don't agree with Meeko's evaluation, but it's not an anti-town position. We have to make allowances for other players to disagree in good faith. The problem comes if a player uses their ambivalence to justify their vote (or lack of vote). That's a non-starter. We're each responsible for how our votes sit at the end of the Day. Claiming you considered not voting for a player is not an excuse for ending the Day with your vote on them. Own your votes, own your non-votes.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 9, 2013 14:59:45 GMT -5
Of course you have to be accountable for your votes and that is why I really dislike what swammiseptimus has done. Vote everyone....but wait....xyz might not be scum. Most players in this game are unlikely to be scum unless the Mod wants the game over quickly and scum wins. There is absolutely no accountability for these votes nor are any reasons given.
Vote: Swammerdammi
For taking a D1 easy way out and thoughtless voting. It's a bit like "if you're good I will get you a pressie" by unvoting a player. This just raises my hackles and I don't like it.
I can get used to multi-voting, it's much better than FOSing. It really shows how one feels.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 9, 2013 15:27:30 GMT -5
Unvote swammer
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 9, 2013 15:28:13 GMT -5
Third time is the charm. Unvote swammer
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 9, 2013 15:34:35 GMT -5
Lunchtime vote count:
FruitAndGarbage (4,4): Pleonast [37]; swammerdami [53]; silverjan [60]; Mahaloth [73] Pleonast (4,4): swammerdami [53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; thelastdays [55,55,56], Mahaloth [73]
swammerdami (3,4): swammerdami [53,53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; Mahaloth [73,95]; Meeko [86]; silverjan [93]
Idle Thoughts (2,3): FruitAndGarbage [33]; Meeko [49,86]; swammerdami [53, 53]; thelastdays [55,55,56] Meeko (2,3): swammerdami [53]; silverjan [60,91]; Mahaloth [71] dizzymrslizzy (2,2): swammerdami [53]; silverjan [83] Mahaloth (2,2): swammerdami [53]; Pleonast [89]
gnarlycharlie (1,1): swammerdami [53] Colby11 (1,1): swammerdami [53] BillMc (1,1): swammerdami [53] TheLastDays (1,1): swammerdami [53] xArchangelx (1,1): swammerdami [53] Chameleon (1,1): swammerdami [53] silverjan (1,1): swammerdami [53] patricia (1,1): swammerdami [53] Suburban Plankton (1,1): swammerdami [53]
With these votes, FruitAndGarbage will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 9, 2013 15:57:03 GMT -5
IdleThoughts thelastdays swammerdami
See y'all after my shift
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 9, 2013 15:58:26 GMT -5
Just to make sure that counts: Unvote: IdleThoughts Vote: thelastdays Vote: swammerdami
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 9, 2013 16:17:51 GMT -5
Of course you have to be accountable for your votes and that is why I really dislike what swammiseptimus has done. Vote everyone....but wait....xyz might not be scum. Most players in this game are unlikely to be scum unless the Mod wants the game over quickly and scum wins. There is absolutely no accountability for these votes nor are any reasons given. Yes, but you're forgetting that this is a multi-vote game. We're also responsible for our non-votes, because we're not limited to one vote. For example, you're not currently voting for Pleonast. How do you justify this? Your lack of vote indicates you don't want to lynch me, yet you've given no reasons why. Of course, with this many players, it's hard to come up with good reads on everyone. So we only give reasons for the active votes we have, with a default of non-vote and not-lynch. swammer is taking the opposite approach. They're assuming everyone should be lynched by default, and is giving reasons for advocating someone not be lynched. They're still as accountable as everyone else, but doing it a slightly different way. Remember, when we lynch scum, everyone who did not vote for the scum is going to have to justify their lack of a vote with more than "I thought someone else looked more suspicious". The entire multi vote thing has got to stop. I wouldn't live it down if I didn't call it outright. I've been in two games now with a similar role, there are no such benefits as above here. Meeko you're also not fully accounting for the multi-votes. While it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by votes, in a multi-vote game where votes are cheap, it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by the lack of votes. You're not voting for quite a few players. Are you up to something? Why do you think those players should not be lynched. That's a rhetorical question, but I hope you see things from a broader perspective.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 9, 2013 17:24:00 GMT -5
Of course you have to be accountable for your votes and that is why I really dislike what swammiseptimus has done. Vote everyone....but wait....xyz might not be scum. Most players in this game are unlikely to be scum unless the Mod wants the game over quickly and scum wins. There is absolutely no accountability for these votes nor are any reasons given. Yes, but you're forgetting that this is a multi-vote game. We're also responsible for our non-votes, because we're not limited to one vote. For example, you're not currently voting for Pleonast. How do you justify this? Your lack of vote indicates you don't want to lynch me, yet you've given no reasons why. Of course, with this many players, it's hard to come up with good reads on everyone. So we only give reasons for the active votes we have, with a default of non-vote and not-lynch. swammer is taking the opposite approach. They're assuming everyone should be lynched by default, and is giving reasons for advocating someone not be lynched. They're still as accountable as everyone else, but doing it a slightly different way. Remember, when we lynch scum, everyone who did not vote for the scum is going to have to justify their lack of a vote with more than "I thought someone else looked more suspicious". The entire multi vote thing has got to stop. I wouldn't live it down if I didn't call it outright. I've been in two games now with a similar role, there are no such benefits as above here. Meeko you're also not fully accounting for the multi-votes. While it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by votes, in a multi-vote game where votes are cheap, it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by the lack of votes. You're not voting for quite a few players. Are you up to something? Why do you think those players should not be lynched. That's a rhetorical question, but I hope you see things from a broader perspective. To open the can of worms that is a "multi vote to charge up" mechanic of late, let me take this on. A power, mind you any power, of any alignment, that is aided by inactivity? Because our group needs even more initiative to not participate. And if you got that I was being sarcastic there, I will take that as progress in how you guys get on with me.
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 9, 2013 19:30:05 GMT -5
Checking in. I believe Idle because he has done this in every game I have ever seen. The multiple votes system is confusing me.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 9, 2013 20:26:36 GMT -5
Checking in. I believe Idle because he has done this in every game I have ever seen. The multiple votes system is confusing me. I believe him too, but what does him doing this before have to do with it? I believe him because the role seems legit and it would be dumb to lie about it. Why is multivoting confusing?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 9, 2013 20:51:58 GMT -5
I've been so busy replying to questions and defending myself a bit that I haven't even paid attention to anyone else, so am at a loss as to a good vote idea.
Time for a reread.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 9, 2013 20:55:59 GMT -5
And here's MY reasoning on why past actions should be taken into account, which I think is very good logic: Point in case, in THIS thread, someone asked me WHY? WHY would you claim if you were a protective role? If someone were to ask that and then USE IT AS A REASON TO WHY I'M SCUMMY AND THAT THAT IS A SCUMMY THING TO DO...then showing them "Hey, I was a town doctor in THIS game and claimed on Day one...so obviously it's not necessarily a GOOD SIGN that I'm scum! Seriously. If someone is telling me "You must be scum because you outed a power role on Day one", I'm going to let them know I've done it before....and as verified (now) Town. There goes their reasoning into the garbage. Now, yeah, I COULD be lying this time of course....but I think that should take a way the "That's something a scum thing would do" reason, because I've done it before (many times).
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 9, 2013 21:19:52 GMT -5
(I see post numbers at the top of Page 4, but not at tops of Pages 1-3. Normal?)
I think voting for my multi-vote is an easy way out. But to show there's no hard feelings I'll unvote some of my voters.
I have slight Town leans on these players: Unvote: gnarlycharlie Unvote: Colby11 Unvote: FruitandGarbage Unvote: Mahaloth
Bill is too good a scum hunter to kill this early. Let's follow the advice in Gnarly's .sig: Unvote: BillMc
Let's let the bickerers bicker for a while: Unvote: silverjan Unvote: dizzymrslizzy Unvote: Meeko
With these Unvotes, I'll probably be MisLynched toDay. I claim Vanilla Town. Should I mention which of the four provinces of Oz I come from? Does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 9, 2013 21:28:55 GMT -5
(I see post numbers at the top of Page 4, but not at tops of Pages 1-3. Normal?) Now I see that clicking browser's Refresh button is what makes the reply numbers appear!(Has this already been discussed? Will "skimming" be added to the charge(s) against me? )
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 10, 2013 1:00:52 GMT -5
And here's MY reasoning on why past actions should be taken into account, which I think is very good logic: Point in case, in THIS thread, someone asked me WHY? WHY would you claim if you were a protective role? If someone were to ask that and then USE IT AS A REASON TO WHY I'M SCUMMY AND THAT THAT IS A SCUMMY THING TO DO...then showing them "Hey, I was a town doctor in THIS game and claimed on Day one...so obviously it's not necessarily a GOOD SIGN that I'm scum! Seriously. If someone is telling me "You must be scum because you outed a power role on Day one", I'm going to let them know I've done it before....and as verified (now) Town. There goes their reasoning into the garbage. Now, yeah, I COULD be lying this time of course....but I think that should take a way the "That's something a scum thing would do" reason, because I've done it before (many times). So, I legit don't think you're scum, up-front. I also doubt you're PFK, but more on that later. Claiming the way you did this early paints too much of a target on you from town and scum, and a PFK needs to be careful and quiet to win (see: Texcat's sneaky clinch victory in Watchfia). But! That doesn't really answer the question of why you did what you did. I'm not trying to count it against you alignmentwise, I just... kind of think it plays against your wincon. Scum knows you can't self-protect and doesn't want someone interfering with their kill, and an SK would like you even less. It seems like a claim this early, and this unprovoked, just makes it hard for you to play and win. I don't understand why you'd do it, in that respect. Unrelatedly, the reason I voted for swammer this afternoon was because the more I thought about it, the more the whole shotgun vote thing seemed like an easy way to disavow oneself of an early mislynch: if a wagon builds on someone that he'd already voted for, later in the game he can deflect suspicion from people combing the voting record by saying "Well, I had a policy vote on everyone at that point!"; it's also a good way to have a finger in the pie of every bussed scummate without ever really pushing for their lynch. After a day of mulling it over, though... the more that seemed kind of stupid. I dunno. Would anybody really buy excuses like that? That said, at this point the top lynch candidates are him and Pleo, and I'd generally prefer to go for the claimed vanilla than the soft-claimed power role in a lynch I don't have strong suspicions about. I think Pleo's up for the noose right now, though, since swammer voted for him before gnarly voted for swammer. Might be time to make with the claims or the arguments before things progress too far.
|
|
|
Post by thelastdays on Oct 10, 2013 1:47:39 GMT -5
I want to point out because people have brought up the idea that Idle could have simply claimed town doc if he wanted to claim for cover while being a PFK. While this is correct, it wouldn't explain the "marking" PM that his targets receive. A doc target doesn't get a PM, at least not in any game I've played so far. So, if I know I'm a PFK third party that has to target as many players as possible and they'll receive a PM about it, how do I cover for that?
Well, my best bet would be to claim as accurately as possible, say that I'm a third party and BUT leave out the PFK part. Yes, sure it could be argued both ways, which is why I'll unvote: Idle for now but you are in no way getting a pass because of that claim Idle and I don't care how many games you might have done the same thing. We are playing this game right now, not any of your previous games.#
As for the multivote thing: Before his recent wave of unvotes Swammi was basically voting no one effectively and that can't be the pro town way to go about things. It's just as easy as voting no one. That said, with his recent unvotes this has changed but now I would like to have an explanation for the votes he has left valid (including the one on me). Just because you first voted everyone without explanations and then unvoted most of them doesn't mean you get to not explain your votes, so until we get an explanation vote: swammerdami
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Oct 10, 2013 8:24:25 GMT -5
I'm willing to watch this Idle claim unfold a little more before placing a vote on him. But, most of the day has been about Idle and his claim. Very little information on the rest of the players at this point. One only other thing I didn't like today was Swammerdami voting for everyone without cause or case - seems like she/he is trying to be right and is using the multi vote to cover votes on his scum buddies. I don't see the other cases as having much at this time so for now
Vote: Swammerdami
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 10, 2013 9:07:28 GMT -5
I guess I'm a goner. No big harm since I'm just Vanilla. (The waste of outing Power roles on Day 1 has made me wonder if a Vanilla Lynch volunteer might even be good Day 1 tactic!)
All the Scum (and most of the more skilled Townies) believe I am Vanilla Town, so I do hope the rush to MisLynch me will leave a useful voting record.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 10, 2013 10:34:37 GMT -5
I guess I'm a goner. No big harm since I'm just Vanilla. (The waste of outing Power roles on Day 1 has made me wonder if a Vanilla Lynch volunteer might even be good Day 1 tactic!) All the Scum (and most of the more skilled Townies) believe I am Vanilla Town, so I do hope the rush to MisLynch me will leave a useful voting record. I would like to know who you are actually voting for now and your reasons why. Just saying that you are a Vanilla Townie isn't really good enough.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 10, 2013 11:26:35 GMT -5
At present I have votes on
TheLastDays xArchangelx Chameleon patricia Pleonast Suburban Plankton
In most cases the only real "charge" is low activity. I think Pleonast explained that Unvoting Townies and Voting Scum are two equally valid approaches to the multi-vote. Instead players pretend not to understand, or invent reasons to treat me as Scummy.
I'm fine with being Lynched. I don't intend to rephrase my remarks three different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 10, 2013 11:36:51 GMT -5
Good morning the mod is absolutely SLAMMED at work Vote Count:
swammerdami (6,6): swammerdami [53,53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; Mahaloth [73,95]; Meeko [86]; silverjan [93]; FruitAndGarbage [98]; thelastdays [108]; patricia [109]
Pleonast (4,4): swammerdami [53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; thelastdays [55,55,56], Mahaloth [73] FruitAndGarbage (3,4): Pleonast [37]; swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [60]; Mahaloth [73]
TheLastDays (2,2): swammerdami [53]; FruitAndGarbage [98]
Meeko (1,3): swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [60,91]; Mahaloth [71] dizzymrslizzy (1,2): swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [83] Mahaloth (1,2): swammerdami [53, 105]; Pleonast [89]
patricia (1,1): swammerdami [53] Suburban Plankton (1,1): swammerdami [53] xArchangelx (1,1): swammerdami [53] Chameleon (1,1): swammerdami [53]
Idle Thoughts (0,3): FruitAndGarbage [33,98]; Meeko [49,86]; swammerdami [53, 53]; thelastdays [55,55,56,108] gnarlycharlie (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105] Colby11 (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105] BillMc (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105] silverjan (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105]
With these votes, swammerdami will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 10, 2013 12:01:33 GMT -5
I'm back from vacation, and I've done a quick read of the Day. A couple thoughts to start with... First off, I do have any powers this game. I am not making any other claims (explicit or implicit) at this time. Pleo, It looks like there's a bit of a typo here, or at least some awkward phrasing. Did you intend to say "I do (not) have any powers", or "I do have any powers"? In other words, are you claiming "Vanilla" or not? Idle, in your original (Post 2) claim, you mention that your power protects on the first Night, and then on the second Day/Night. I'm the Wicked Witch of the West.... On the SECOND Day/Night, IF the person is Town and Town try to kill them, it will fail...however kills from any other group will not be blocked.If the person is scum and a third party or PFK role tries to kill them, it will fail....however kills from any other group will not be blocked.Later, you post your full PM: I already have, but here it is again: I'm a protective role. I can protect players. As for full role, here you go: And I had it clarified: Protection is just for the first two Nights...NOT the rest of the game. I don't see the word "Day" anywhere in your PM. So where did you get the idea that you have a Day protection?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 10, 2013 12:20:02 GMT -5
For the record, I'm one of the people who thinks it is pretty much required to kill all claimed Third Parties, est they turn out to be PFKs. However, that does not necessarily mean we have to lynch any claimed Third Party as soon as possible. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what Idle's alignment is, he's not going to steal a win on Night 1. So I'm not advocating his immediate lynch on the grounds that he is 'non-Town'. That being said, I'm not crazy about his claim at this point. First, there's the fact that his original claim does not match his posted PM. Second, despite his claims to the contrary his power is not 'pro-Town' (though I wouldn't call it 'anti-Town' either), and his wincon forces him to play in a 'pro Idle' fashion, which may very well equate to 'anti-Town' as the game wears on. If it were not for the inconsistency with his PM, I'd be happy to wait a couple Days to see how things play out, but since it seems he has already lied to us somewhere along the line Vote: Idle Thoughts I was set to vote for swammerdami for his multivoting (and not just because it makes my spreadsheet cry), but Pleonast's argument ( Post 99) convinced me otherwise. Which is why I'm really not happy with patricia's vote on swammer. She could have placed that vote with the same reasoning at any time in the last 2 days (RL); instead it looks as though she's jumping on a convenient late-Day bandwagon. Vote: patricia
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 10, 2013 12:20:07 GMT -5
I'm back from vacation, and I've done a quick read of the Day. A couple thoughts to start with... First off, I do have any powers this game. I am not making any other claims (explicit or implicit) at this time. Pleo, It looks like there's a bit of a typo here, or at least some awkward phrasing. Did you intend to say "I do (not) have any powers", or "I do have any powers"? In other words, are you claiming "Vanilla" or not? Doh! Yes, I skipped the "not". I do not have any powers this game. I'm not claiming to be vanilla. I'm sure someone will complain about that, but I'll split hairs for now. I'm willing to watch this Idle claim unfold a little more before placing a vote on him. But, most of the day has been about Idle and his claim. Very little information on the rest of the players at this point. One only other thing I didn't like today was Swammerdami voting for everyone without cause or case - seems like she/he is trying to be right and is using the multi vote to cover votes on his scum buddies. I don't see the other cases as having much at this time so for now Vote: SwammerdamiThis vote looks off to me. While swammer undoubtedly voted a bunch of scum, they also voted for a bunch of town. And since a lot of players get kneejerk suspicious when someone votes them, I don't see how swammer's tactic actually benefits them in any way. Having a poorly thought-through argument isn't necessarily suspicious, but patricia is also complaining about a lack of other options. That seems odd, considering the good amount of discussion we've had so far. Other players are finding places for their votes easily enough. The combination of a bad argument plus not looking too hard for more, tweaks me as scum trying to make a safe vote without taking any risk. vote patricia for making a single safe vote.
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 10, 2013 12:31:55 GMT -5
Checking in. I believe Idle because he has done this in every game I have ever seen. The multiple votes system is confusing me. I believe him too, but what does him doing this before have to do with it? I believe him because the role seems legit and it would be dumb to lie about it. Why is multivoting confusing? Him doing it before *in every game I have ever seen him in* indicates it's part of his playstyle. Of course, sometimes he must be scum and in those cases he would simulate it, I guess. But yes, the role makes sense as a role and it would be dumb to lie about it. Multi voting is confusing because with one vote you really have to put your vote where it counts, and it leaves a more solid voting record.
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 10, 2013 12:36:05 GMT -5
(I see post numbers at the top of Page 4, but not at tops of Pages 1-3. Normal?) I think voting for my multi-vote is an easy way out. But to show there's no hard feelings I'll unvote some of my voters. I have slight Town leans on these players: Unvote: gnarlycharlieUnvote: Colby11Unvote: FruitandGarbageUnvote: MahalothBill is too good a scum hunter to kill this early. Let's follow the advice in Gnarly's .sig: Unvote: BillMcLet's let the bickerers bicker for a while: Unvote: silverjanUnvote: dizzymrslizzyUnvote: MeekoWith these Unvotes, I'll probably be MisLynched toDay. I claim Vanilla Town. Should I mention which of the four provinces of Oz I come from? Does it matter? I am also wondering if the provinces make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 10, 2013 12:40:25 GMT -5
Pleo, thanks for the clarification. And on that note, I'm looking at a post Colby made shortly thereafter. I think FruitandGarbage is just trying to make sure to nip Idle, in case he is a PFK and not a general 3rd party. I don't think that Idle is a win stealer, so I won't go that route. Pleonast claimed to not have a power that he can "use"... That has caught my attention at the moment, because there are only a few roles that I can think of that fits that. Whether he is town or not, that is what I'm debating right now. Unsure right now, but Pleonast is a very skilled player so I can't count anything out <emphasis mine>This catches my attention, because that's not at all what Pleonast claimed. As I pointed out, what Pleonast actually claimed didn't make any sense at all...and certainly said nothing about whether or not he might be able to "use" any powers he may or may not have. This whole post feels off. In the surface, he's merely saying "I'm not sure if Pleo is Town or not". Which is a perfectly logical position to have at this point. But he does it in a very odd way, and he puts words in Pleo's mouth to help 'make his point'. And having left that hanging in space, he's yet to return to follow up on his 'non-accusation'. Vote: Colby11
|
|