Day One

[Gir!]

Random.org commands me to vote for player 21.

Santo Rugger for Governor!

[Death By Irony]

*arrives fashionably late, because I can *

vote pygmy rugger for Governer ;D

Other points being currently discussed:
*We all have our ideas of what protown powerroles are in the game, and I advocate letting them do their work as necessary; as far as killing roles go, we'll probably find something out come Day 2
*I'm not so sure about the lynch candidate = governer candidate idea. We'd only get information about one person that way.
*We need a different color/style for FoSes now that orange is taken. What about italics?

[Death By Irony]

*edit by way of double post*

I meant Santo Rugger of course.

Santo Rugger: Mind if I just call you "rugger" for short? ;D

And feel free to address/FoS/vote (or not ;D) for me as dotchan. Death By Irony does take a while to type.

[RoOsh]

Jesus Christ... Thursdays I'm in class all day and i come back and see that I didn't post for a WHOLE DAY?!?!?!
That's Very unlikely to happen again. Heh. Even if it was a Day zero. Damn!

But still, my opinions: as i LOVE to give them out:
Dude- the "Lets autolych the Gov idea": STUPID.BAD! Most uncool.
I dislike it, because its creating an "automatic deferral of guilt" in voting. Just like voting for a no lynch, having an Auto-Kill policy BLOWS. Because what that could lead to is Scum not voting for Governor, we then elect a gov'nor, and then Scum can just vote for killing him and say "Well... he wasn't the guy I wanted for Gov... but I guess I'll agree with this townie idea" and then BAM- instant fuckage.
It just sounds like a bad idea in my head. Not enough to warrant a full out FoS. But def an Eyebrow of Suspicion. (O_<)
EoS Pleo in my head....

The other idea i really disliked only because I liked it, but realized its flaws as the Day0 went on: NAF's "Deferral of Guilt plan" because I agree with him. I dislike people who don't post: ie: Lurkers. I was really irked in the last game by WTF's whole laying low strategy, because I felt like at the end, NO solo mafia would just LURK that blatantly, and it was one reason i didn't investigate him vs. the others- I chalked him up as an inactive player. So coming out of the FireFly game, i was all revved up to be anti-lurkers. And then I read your Ideas, NAF. Again, it seems like a good idea on the surface. But then as Day 0 went on, others chimed in, and suddenly it wasn't just 1 guy going "hey, yeah, I'm always for the first few days gonna just vote for the lowest poster"
it was 2-3 people. And that's BAD.

Because that's a bunch of people who are basically covering up evidence then. I am a fan of voting with REASON. ie: if you vote, back it up. If you vote anyone, make sure you have good reasons, so we can examine your reasons and be suspicious of anyone who just goes "me too! I agree!". But by stating you will ALWAYS vote for the lowest, it means we can't judge your voting patterns for the first few days, they're fixed.
It's no different then PygmyFather's tactics of ALWAYS being the Hammer in FF mafia. I was suspicious of him, because his voting pattern was simple: he was ALWAYS the hammer.
So i immediately got itchy about you NAF, but then others starting to agree with you, and that worried me even more....

And then you also then added an addendum which I personally hated: Let's not only look at only those with low post counts, lets look at the guys who'll have the HIGHEST post counts.

... :coughs:
Come on now.
That's not cool.
That's basically in my head going: "Let's always vote Roosh."
Heh. But yeah. I'm against your 'lets look at the lowest, and then the guy(s) with the highest, because again... I just felt targeted. I DO try to post content as much as possible. But I will probably inevitably end up having the highest count.... So i didn't like that.

Though, then I noticed that others pointed out you have a tendency to also have high post counts. So that helped me feel better, but still
EoS NAF with the other Eyebrow! (>_O) The ol' pinkeye....
~~~~~~~~~~~~

But then a policy i liked (because i was gonna say it ): Atarus and his let's make the most suspicious person our Gov.
--I like this idea, I didn't like the idea of auto-lynching the Gov though, but I do agree with this plan until a better one can be implemented.
--By making the most suspicious our Gov, we can then watch him and his actions, basically if he fucks around, we fucking waste him. So even if scum get elected to the position, we fucking OWN his ass, cuz if he trys to delay or mess around and we're trying to lynch someone else, we then take a long hard look at the Gov'nor.
--Also, I don't think the Gov. should role claim BEFORE they're elected, that's just bad... we should elect the most suspicious person yes, but just trying to get the role claim out there BEFORE he's elected.... Bad things will happen.
--------Trust me on this one. I'm speaking from experience.
It SOUNDs like a good idea in theory. And it COULD be.... But i don't think it's the way to go currently, after our (my) fiascoes from the Firefly RamiroChan, JubalChan, TopDog incidents.... (-_-)

MY IDEAS for GoV:
--What i DO believe though, is once we have a Gov. we should examine him among others as a suspect. He should become then prosecutor #1 for the Town basically: He needs to start sharing information on who he thinks is scummy, and he should co-operate (so one idea: What about making our LOWEST post counter the Gov? Light a fire up under their asses, eh?)
-- (Assuming there is a mason group of course) I think we should have gov's of suspicion until a mason gets elected. At that point, he could claim mason hood, and if no one disagrees with him, we don't just keep trying to lynch the poor bastard, and we actually just have a stable system of office (of course then we'd have to deal with scum killing him off, but that's another bridge).
So i'm for voting most suspicious OR Least Active to Gov. until we get a qualified (obv. a pro-townie) person into Gov, and then we don't keep trying to lynch our gov. But till then we should DEF. take a good long hard look at him.

/Ends speech
/waits for applause.
/...
/...
_{/Quietly walks off.}

[RoOsh]

And so I'm gonna vote for NAF as my Gov. Choice .

Because I explained my Suspicions for NAF above, and it was between him and Pleo in my book.
I could vote either one as my official dude in charge currently.
But I'm wary of all the quick pleo votes, so I'll present a new candidate.

And I had something else to say, but I forgot it.
But yeah:

What do people think of my plan: "Vote the laziest into Office?"
Aka: Operation: The 2000 election

[NAF1138]

roosh said:

And then you also then added an addendum which I personally hated: Let's not only look at only those with low post counts, lets look at the guys who'll have the HIGHEST post counts.

Where did I say that? I said vote for people padding their posts with fluff who aren't contributing. Distracting town from real issues is a scum tell. It has been in every game I have seen. That is WILDLY different from saying lynch people who post a lot.

[RoOsh]

It's how i felt when i read that. My gut instincts just went wild against that. Because I feel i contribute, but often times in the last game I would break up my posts into sections to make them more bearable, and I also have a tendency to not use previews, and I always want to add more (leading up to triple posts- as i now remembered what I had forgotten).

I'm just stating my feelings, NAF. I did point out that as I read on, I noticed that others called you a high frequency poster, and so I felt a little bit better about your idea, but that was my gut feeling upon reading anything where it seems we should look at the lowest and the highest (because one man's fluff is another man's key points). And so I just disliked that because at first I felt like it was gonna be another case of "He posts alot, let's kill him!" from Day 1 (which did eventually lead to my trying to kill myself).

So yeah, I might have been on edge there, but still. I'd rather be honest with my feelings and opinions than hold back. So if you have any Q's about me, feel free to ask rather than presume, and I will always be happy to answer in due time (may need a reminder or something but still. I'm very pro information). Hope that helps. (I found you more suspicious for the whole voting low thing anyways, and that was the major basis of my wanting to vote you for gov, but still).

~~~~~~My forgotten thoughts:~~~
I was just gonna share that I feel like there are more than 2 groups, but obviously again, its just my gut feelings, and we'll have to wait till Dawn (and the kill #'s) to see. But then again, I'm not familiar with the BR storyline, so I don't know. But i ALWAYS like to think the worst. So I'm gonna say more than 2 groups until my gut feelings go away. But just wanted to share than opinion (I didn't feel like making a whole new post just to say that, as it's a pretty trivial thing, but it's where i stand at least, and so NAF, you did allow me a chance to say that then).

[NAF1138]

No worries Roosh. I have a tendency to come of as a bit...agressive, and yes, I do tend to post a lot. More then you...I don't know. I also spell badly and overuse (misuse/abuse) ellipses and parentheticals. This is me.

My big thing is, play like you are going to die toNight. I think, after watching a 2 games with perfect knowledge, and playing 3 games in a row as scum, that the approach we are currently taking to-wards choosing our lynch candidates in the first two days is deeply flawed. I put a lot of thought into my system and think that it will work. The key thing to remember is that it is only supposed to be for the first 2 Days. After that we have enough information (theoretically) to vote in another way.

The more I think about it, the more I think Pleo was right about not just voting for the lowest posting player. I think picking amongst the 3 lowest voting players is the way to go. I also think taking extenuating circumstances into account (yattara is out of town, I think Hal is too, things like that) into account is a good idea.

I think it is a good system, and I stated why I think it is. If you agree then vote using the system, if you disagree and want to tell me why more power to you. If you disagree and DON'T want to tell me why...well that bothers me a bit.

The other thing I do is try to start conversations that I think will expose scum. I strongly believe that if we get scum talking enough they will expose themselves. The results of this particular conversation have already proven very interesting.

[RoOsh]

"My big thing is, play like you are going to die toNight." Agreed.

And what do you think of the Mixed plan: "Vote the lowest posters into Office?"

[Zeriel]

I still don't really understand why NAF seems to be ignoring the ease with which scum can game his plan simply by posting more. It's not exactly rocket science to realize that scum can game ANY publicly posted voting mechanism to their benefit--I say mechanism, because there's not enough thought involved for it to be a tactic.

Me personally, I'm having more and more reservations about the whole governor thing. Once again, we're stuck with a plan that can be gamed by the scum to a greater and greater extent as the game goes on, but at the same time we do need a way to figure out how to neutralize the scum's potential control over the governor in the late game.

For now, I'm letting the conversations swirl around. I'm probably going to not be able to post as much this game as I did in Sekham, but probably going to be able to post more than I did in Firefly. I have a few unfocused suspicions, but I'm not nearly sure enough of them to even go forth with anything.

The governor debate should be of GREAT interest to the townies, as should anyone proposing an automatic method of voting that uses little or no discretion--both of these are situations where the scum can have a disproportionate effect on the town.

[Death By Irony]

roosh said:

"My big thing is, play like you are going to die toNight." Agreed.

And what do you think of the Mixed plan: "Vote the lowest posters into Office?"

Meh. I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt as far as low post numbers go. It might be a good strategy early on, but not something that we do as a hard rule. (For example, I learned that sometimes even proTown players will lie through their teeth.)

[NAF1138]

zeriel said:

I still don't really understand why NAF seems to be ignoring the ease with which scum can game his plan simply by posting more.

I swear z, it's like you have made a science out of missing key points in my arguments.

I believe that if the scum post more one of two things has to happen.

1, they post a lot of fluff. Scum tell, we vote them out, or 2 they post real analysis and eventually trip themselves up which is what has happened to every heavy analysis posting scum to play so far. Gad in pirates, BlaM in psycopath, Kyrie in Sekham all fell mainly because scum can't hide behind analysis over the course of the game. Either way we are in good shape. If you see a third option let me know.

Also, the plan get abandoned in favor of a little less open method of voting after Day 2. Scum make their worst slips early in the game, and we will almost always lynch a townie if left to our own devises on the first two days anyway.

Roosh, as far as the mixed method you mentioned. I am not sure yet. I haven't totally wrapped my head around the idea of the Gov role yet. I am cautiously in favor. But I am not really certain what I think about that yet.

[CatInASuit]

Ok, a few thoughts on the day so far broken down into easy to read posts

The Governer role.
I can see this causing more problems than trying to decide who to lynch. It is a real poison chalice for anyone who winds up in the role for the reasons given by various people.
1. They become a likely scum target
2. They get WIFOM from the town if the scum don't knock them off
3. If they make a wrong decision it can cost the town badly.
etc etc

Auto-lynching the governer can be a bad idea especially if we wind up with a pro town power role in the job. You are effectively asking people to role claim to prevent them becoming Governer.

Having the governer as a fallback lynch has some merits but once again relies on the person holding the role not being a power role, needing them to claim in advance etc etc.

Finally, have the governer as a lynch target means that we will only have 24 hours from the details of the night actions to determine a lynch victim for the day. Not a good situation IMHO.

[CatInASuit]

Lynching posters based on post values.

Personally, I think this is dumb. Looking at the lowest posters and saying, if you don't post we will lynch you, doesn't help much and on a more out of game note will probably ruin their enjoyment of the game. Quite a few people on here will not post anywhere near as much as NAF or Roosh. That does not mean we should lynch them for the fact.

If you are going to vote to lynch someone, you need a reason and personally, I don't consider a poster's post count to be a good reason. Whether it is really high or really low, what really matters is the content of thier post.

Using their post count is the easy way out of saying I am not going to bother trying to find a good reason to vote for this person.

[Santo Rugger]

pleonast said:

<snip>
Do you want to explain your vote?

*My support is actually for the non-automatic version of the plan, as suggested my atarus.

Yes. Option 5. I think your original plan is very, very bad. I think the modified plan is an improvement, but it still requires the Guv to go above and beyond the call of duty to collect evidence on others. Like I said before, I want to see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. Even though you say you won't shift paradigms if elected, you're not happy with being voted for.

You do seem to be a bit worried that you have two votes for you, demanding an explanation. Why did you question my motives, but not zerial about his?

dotchan, you know the saying, you can call me whatever you want... Rugger, Santo, Pygmy... just don't call me late for dinner!

[CatInASuit]

Now to add some real WIFOM onto the table.

I would like to take the role of the Governer.

I can think of a few good reasons why but the main one is it will stop a lot of the arguments. We need the town to act together to get rid of the replicants and this means, if necessary, a little bit of sacrifice.

But better me as a target than someone more important to the town.

[Santo Rugger]

Although I agree with your reasoning, Cat, I think it may be better to have a Guv who's normally on when everybody else is, as they'll only have six hours to make a decision. Unless we can get the hammer-to-bes to agree to wait until you're going to be around to let it drop.

[Captain Klutz]

It seems a bit early in the game to be so concerned about the Governor role. Later in the game the role will become much more important, but for now let's just choose someone. Even a random choice would be okay, but since CatInASuit has volunteered I am happy to go along with that. But I won't vote quite yet, just in case someone else wants to throw their hat into the ring.

[CatInASuit]

As I see it the Governer fulfils three roles.

1. A Lynch cannot go ahead without a governer.

2. In the case of a majority being reached on a candidate, then the governer can decide whether to grant a stay of execution or authorise an immediate lynch.

3. The governer makes the choice between 2 candidates who are tied or else says "no lynch".

Answers
1. This is not going to occur unless the town keeps prevaricating
2. Considering the difficulty in getting a full majority vote on someone, I think those looking to drop the hammer can wait until I am online again.
3. A Mason role would be more useful here, but even they are not going to be able to discern the difference between colonist, another pro-town role and a replicant. This is the only situation where the side of the Governer will matter, and the longer the gane goes on the more important it will be.

[episodeofblonde]

I think we can't risk having a lurker or semi-lurker as Guv even this early in the game, as that could leave the town without a head at a crucial point. Even if it 'lights a fire under their ass' for a moment, if they just don't post when we need them, what are we going to do?

Whilst I am wary of electing someone who seems eager to take on the job, CatInASuit's alacrity might do us some good, as he says, by shutting down distracting avenues of discussion.

However, for now I am going to go with

Vote Parzival for Guv'nor

He seems like he'd be good at it. Parzival '08! And I am slightly suspicious of him (just a gut thing) - I'd like to see what he'd do with the job.

I am willing to switch to Cat if there is a consensus that we should move towards wrapping up the discussion and getting someone in there.

[Drain Bead]

Can we get a vote count for the Gubernatorial race?

Out of all those arguing, other than myself, of course, I agree most with what zeriel is saying. I think he would make a good guv...problem being is that this is putting a big target right on his ass.

Should we be voting for people we think would be good at the job, or people we're suspicious of? I don't think that question has been adequately answered.

[CatInASuit]

Current and completely non-official Guv'nor vote count

Pleonast(3) : Santo Rugger, zeriel, hockeymonkey
Santo Rugger(2) : Kat, Death by Irony
Diomedes(1) : sinjin
zeriel(1) : Parzival
kat(1) : drainbead
Roosh(1) : Cookies
NAF(1) : Roosh
Parzival(1) : episodeofblonde

We still require at least 2 more votes to elect a Governer

[Merestil Haye]

Strictly Unofficial Vote Count :

Pleonast (3) : Santo Rugger, Zeriel, HockeyMonkey

Santo Rugger (2) : Kat, Death by Irony

Diomedes (1) : Sinjin
Kat (1) : Drainbead
NAF1138 (1) : Roosh
Parzival (1) : Episodeofblonde
Roosh (1) : DarkCookies
Zeriel (1) : Parzival

[Captain Klutz]

drainbead said:

Should we be voting for people we think would be good at the job, or people we're suspicious of? I don't think that question has been adequately answered.

I'm not sure what really qualfies as a "good" Governor. We are unlikely to have a majority vote toDay, so the Governor will only be called upon if we finish in a tie. I would say that's unlikely to happen for at least the first few Days.

As for making suspicious people Governor, I think it's a matter of "wait and see": this is a new feature for most (all?) of us, so we don't really know what type of person would be best for Governor.

[Zeriel]

I am entirely unconcerned about a target on my ass. It's pretty much always there anyway--I don't play in a way that makes me a lot of friends.

NAF, here's the problem with your response--I didn't really spectate too much on the other games, but Kyrie never struck me as a heavy analysis posting scum--and for that matter, he lasted until it was three-man mafia. This is not a ringing endorsement of your plan.

The third option for those scum is this: post a few small insights and mostly act cautious, like most of the players currently are.

The other thing is this--how do you propose to separate scum posting fluff to avoid your rule from people who post a little fluff now and again anyway? Getting out of the "bottom three posters" is never much more than a matter of a few posts, for the first couple of days.

The other thing is this: I almost NEVER see a scum get caught before day 4 or 5, except for that glorious first werewolf game on the Dope back in the day.

And note, the last time I "missed the point" of your arguements, I was right, Sekhamite. =P Maybe you don't wanna be pointing that out?

[CatInASuit]

zeriel said:

The other thing is this: I almost NEVER see a scum get caught before day 4 or 5, except for that glorious first werewolf game on the Dope back in the day.

Sekham and Firefly both scum caught within the first 4 days, although Sekham is an oddity because 3 of the scum all voted for their counterpart. The Pirates game had zuma lynched on Day 3 as well in an anti town role.

I think it is more common than you think it is.

[Santo Rugger]

Roosh, while I'm glad to see that you're making your suspicions public, I'd like to point out that there have only been two posters who have stated new or radical ideas, and you've EoSed both of them. If we discourage people from making their ideas public, we may miss the best idea, one that may clinch the game for us.

[storyteller0910]

Good morning, folks!

OFFICIAL GUBERNATORIAL VOTE COUNT, 16 NOVEMBER - 9:00AM EST

Pleonast (3) - Santo Rugger, zeriel, hockeymonkey
Santo Rugger (2) - Kat, Death by Irony
Diomedes (1) - sinjin
zeriel (1) - Parzival
kat (1) - drainbead
Roosh (1) - Cookies
NAF (1) - Roosh
Parzival (1) - episodeofblonde

11 ballots have been cast, of a required 13 to reach a quorum. The election period ends today at 5:00PM EST, or in almost exactly 8 hours. If at least two more votes are cast by then, and if one candidate has more votes than any other candidate, the vote leader will be elected Governor at that time.

QUICK NOTE: I awoke this morning to no fewer than nine questions / requests for clarification. Unfortunately, I have a 90-minute staff meeting beginning three minutes ago, so I won't be able to address them until I return at 10:30. I will do so immediately at that time.

[Zeriel]

I wasn't counting Sekham because it seemed like the scum handed us that one, given the vote pattern, but I take your point.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

captainklutz said:

drainbead said:

Should we be voting for people we think would be good at the job, or people we're suspicious of? I don't think that question has been adequately answered.

I'm not sure what really qualfies as a "good" Governor. We are unlikely to have a majority vote toDay, so the Governor will only be called upon if we finish in a tie. I would say that's unlikely to happen for at least the first few Days.

As for making suspicious people Governor, I think it's a matter of "wait and see": this is a new feature for most (all?) of us, so we don't really know what type of person would be best for Governor.

I just want to remind everyone that the Guv is also free and empowered to implement a stay of execution, whether or not the motivations for that stay are pro-town, and whether or not the action is favored by the majority.

My current ponderings on the Guv is that, regardless of the method used to elect or whatever "consensus" might be voiced by the players as to each unique Guv role, is that I am very wary of what the scum will do while there.

On that note, the opening days of most of the games I've seen or played in have been red with the blood of innocent deaths, so there's a good chance that (even if we do end up selecting a Guv by voting for the most suspicious person, or one of the three players with the lowest post count) we will not end up plunking a scum into the Guv seat.

On the other, other hand, things could get very complicated if the consensus/majority views on a Guv shift while s/he's in office. For example,
we put a "bad" (suspicious, lurker) person in the office, but s/he manages to politik their way into an actual pro-town leadership role? Or we put a Golden Child in the office, and use their position to play us for chumps towards a scum/other advantage.

What would our discussions look like during such a shift? How are individual players going to interpret such shifts, and what perceptions will they be voicing or keeping close to the vest?