Day Two

[Santo Rugger]

pleonast said:

pygmyrugger said:

What if the person you find most scummy upon your reread isn't on your short list?

I only have time to reread a few players, the ones on my short list.
<snip>

So you're going to skip everybody else's posts? Or read one posters at a time, with no context?

FTR, my vote is based on an accumulation of yesterday, plus your point system that is very egocentric.

[storyteller0910]

DAY TWO KICKOFF VOTE COUNT

Pleonast (1) - Santo Rugger
mhaye (1) - Pleonast

Two votes have been cast. The Day will end in approximately 72 hours, at 5:00PM EST on Thursday, November 29. Heading for home, and won't be back until tomorrow morning - have fun!

[Santo Rugger]

72 hours. Seventy two hours. Let's get some votes in. One of my favorite tactics as scum was to wait until the voting had already developed, preferably in the last 24 hours, and swoop in with a vote that would likely get my target lynched. Vote now. You can always change it later.

[Parzival]

Cookies, I had some of the same reaction as you (at least with respect to "replicants are resistant" as fact). I don't like NAF putting it on his list. (For the record, I sort of don't believe his claim, but consider it too powerful to risk a lynch.) However, story mentioned in the opening that there are players with Day actions:

(Any player with a Day action may PM me at any time, starting now, with their choice. Off-board discussants may not discuss strategy off-board until the end of the Day).

Another thing revealed there - any groups that can confer off-board may not do so during the Day. I had missed that, and wasn't sure until I read it that we could rule out scum strategizing during the Day.

[NAF1138]

cometothedarkside said:

naf1138 said:

What we know.

I know it is comming a tad late in the Day, but I have been unusually busy.

What we know (facts):

<snip>
7. Some players have Day actions.
8. At least 3 factions with kill abilities at least one shot Night Kill abilities
9. Replicants are resistant to Night kills.
</snip>

I need to re-read story's posts with respect to item #7, but I believe that #7 and #9 were stipulated in your alleged role PM (#7 is inferred by Pleo's claim as well, though his alleged day action would only potentially occur after he dies), which does _not_ mean they should be considered as "fact" by any "we".

The same holds for item #8. There are precedents for multiple night kills coming from only one faction. You just created/moderated a game that had the potential for the scum alone killing 3 people in one night.

It does not sit well wiht me that you would try to play such things off as "facts".

ok, 9 is based on my claim. I will give you that, if you like I have no problem taking it out of the fact section and puting it in the theory section. 7 is based on the opening color and other comments story made, 8 I had trouble wording. If you want to reword it that is fine by me. All I was trying to say is there are potentially up to 3 kills a night, but some of them may be one shot abilities. Let me know and I will repost.

[NAF1138]

parzival said:

Another thing revealed there - any groups that can confer off-board may not do so during the Day. I had missed that, and wasn't sure until I read it that we could rule out scum strategizing during the Day.

Good point, I missed that myself. I will add it to the list.

[Pleonast]

pygmyrugger said:

pleonast said:

I only have time to reread a few players, the ones on my short list.
<snip>

So you're going to skip everybody else's posts? Or read one posters at a time, with no context?
FTR, my vote is based on an accumulation of yesterday, plus your point system that is very egocentric.

Thanks for the encouragement.

I've posted my evaluations of six players. Sorry that I don't currently have time for more. How many of you posted?

[Santo Rugger]

pleonast said:

<snip>
I've posted my evaluations of six players. Sorry that I don't currently have time for more. How many of you posted?

That's not my style. I'm not going to "evaluate" all the players in the game based (almost) solely on how many times they've agreed or disagreed with my thoughts this game.

[episodeofblonde]

I'm still midly uncomfortable with the arbitrary nature of Pleo's voting plan, although his explanations have been interesting. Gov. Rugger is smudging him beause his voting system is egocentric, which is a point, except for the fact that Pleo is one of the players responsible for generating much of the discussion (along with NAF, who is mentioned in his posts too), and I think we are all tempted, at least, to vote egocentrically. What is comes down to I'm not sure, but something about Pleo and Gov. Rugger's interactions throughout the game so far is not sitting right with me.

[diggitcamara]

pleonast said:

diggitcamara said:

Sorry, but that's simply not true. If scum really were less likely to vote for Colonists on a Day One vote, all we would have to do is find one scum and eliminate from the Day One voting list all those who (s)he voted against.
There are ways to analyze Day One's voting patterns, but in my experience these patterns are seldom visible before Day Three.

1. Do you have a reason behind saying "simply not true"?
2. We don't know any scum currently, so your suggestion is not possible in any case.
3. This is my Day Two voting tactic, making use of the information currently available. I will use a different tactic tomorrow.
4. Analyze how you like; I am not suggesting anyone else use this tactic.
(snip)

1. I'll rephrase what I was trying to convey: It's simply not true that scum will avoid voting for town (or vice versa) on Day 1. It would be a suicidal strategy for them. It's far more likely (and has been shown in previous games) that they will distribute their votes to avoid identification.
2. I wasn't suggesting you should use my suggestion to vote, I was saying that your proposed identification of scum couldn't possibly be right

The thing is not even you are using your proposed analysis. If you were, you would have to realize that, if you are town, several people on your list would have, as scum, voted for town. Which, according to you, they wouldn't do.

You're narrowing your analysis for some obscure reason. And, since NAF's Night-time information (about Replicants) seems to imply that you are anti-town anyway, I'll just

vote Pleonast

[Santo Rugger]

episodeofblonde said:

I'm still midly uncomfortable with the arbitrary nature of Pleo's voting plan, although his explanations have been interesting. Gov. Rugger is smudging him beause his voting system is egocentric, which is a point, except for the fact that Pleo is one of the players responsible for generating much of the discussion (along with NAF, who is mentioned in his posts too), and I think we are all tempted, at least, to vote egocentrically. What is comes down to I'm not sure, but something about Pleo and Gov. Rugger's interactions throughout the game so far is not sitting right with me.

It's not sitting right with me, either. Pleo's been a mod. He knows the game. He has experience. Yet he keeps pitching these insanely (IMHO) poor ideas. They generated discussion. That's awesome. But when he keeps backing them as they crumble, I start to wonder. For example, he still dings diggit for disagreeing with him about time available for execution under the "Let's Kill the Guv" plan, when he's WRONG.

If you reread his list, half of the alloted points are based on how the Guv voting took place, and/or people disagreeing with his plan. WHICH IS A BAD PLAN!

[Santo Rugger]

diggitcamara said:

<snip>
The thing is not even you are using your proposed analysis. If you were, you would have to realize that, if you are town, several people on your list would have, as scum, voted for town. Which, according to you, they wouldn't do.<snip>

Good call.

[NAF1138]

diomedes said:

Awwww... fuck.

This may make my insta-vote change somewhat. Probably not, but I'll do a reread before I make it.

Hi Dio,

This is the last we have heard from you...anything you wanna share?

[NAF1138]

pleonast said:

My analysis of Day One posts by players on my short list. I'll summarize what I feel the important points each player has made and give what I feel is the suspiciousness of them.
(analysis snipped)

I am not thrilled by your analysis of some of these folks Pleo. Diggits objections to your method of chosing the people (which is a bit of a straw man as far as I am concerned, but accurate) aside, I just don't think I like your + - system. Want to take a shot at explaining yoru analysis a bit more further? Why are some statements a + some a - and some a 0 would be a good start.

[Santo Rugger]

I actually like the idea of the +/- system. I dislike the way the points were assigned.

[sinjin]

pleonast said:

Roosh's vote-count summary is useful, so let me repeat it.

roosh said:

Here is also the Final Vote Count for Day 1:

zuma (6) - Cookies, Kat, Yattara, zeriel, Death by Irony, Sinjin
Pleonast (5) - kassia, Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, Roosh, Diomedes
CatinaSuit (4) - NAF1138, drainbead, hockey monkey, episodeofblonde
zeriel (3) - CatinaSuit, Captain Klutz, mhaye
Kat (2) - Pleonast, Parzival
NAF1138 (1) - Hal Briston
mhaye (1) - atarus
kassia (1) - zuma
Non-Voters: (2) BlasterMaster, HazelNutCoffee

Known Townies bolded above.

I want to make a first cut on who to vote for. I think scum are less likely to vote for Colonists on a Day One vote then Colonists are. Colonists have no real information to go on and so vote essentially randomly.

Replicants may have a bias against voting for Colonists on Day One, since those voting to kill a Colonist are likely to come under suspicion. Voting for another scum is safer. Since we don't have any confirmed scum, I'll cast my first set of suspicion against those who did not vote for a now-confirmed Colonist: kassia, Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, Roosh, Diomedes, Captain Klutz, mhaye, Hal Briston, atarus. (I'll leave off the non-voters because they've been replaced for non-activity.)

That's nine players, out of twenty-one remaining, about half. I'm inclined to toss off the top post-counts from Day One, since they tend to receive a lot of heat, especially on the first Day. From my list of nine, I'll remove Santo Rugger, Roosh, and Diomedes, who posted significantly more than the next highest on my list (24 vs 16).

The players I'll focus on toDay are kassia, diggitcamara, Captain Klutz, mhaye, Hal Briston, and atarus. I'll go back and reread their posts, looking carefully with how they interacted with confirmed Colonists.

Ok, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Five of those you single out for having voted for a non-confirmed Colonist voted for YOU! I keep running this thru my head and if I were using your method I would have tossed those five out right away because I myself can confirm myself as a colonist. If you were a colonist you would also have been able to self-confirm. And if one or more of those 5 suspects of yours were replicants they would also know you were a colonist, if indeed you were one. So by your own logic none of the 5 who voted for you are replicants because they wouldn't have voted for you in the first place if you are indeed a colonist.

Gah the circular logic, it burns.

I can think of no reason why you would not comfirm you to you when deciding how you yourself would vote toDay other than the fact that you are a replicant.

Vote Pleonast

I hope what I wrote up there makes sense. I rewrote it at least a dozen times in an attempt to clarify my thoughts. Can I interest anyone in a Venn diagram?

[NAF1138]

[oog]There must be something about the mafia games that makes me write like I have a 3rd grade education. Maybe it is because I am trying to dash off ideas quickly while I am at work...anyway[/oog]

I think I am going to vote for Kassia for now.

I went back and read her (very few) posts and there is something off about them. Maybe if she was posting more I would be able to place my finger on it a bit better. I know I raised some mild suspicion of her on Day 1, and in light of my other prime suspect getting killed over Night she has moved to the top of my list.

I reserve the right to change my vote as the Day progresses.

[RoOsh]

pygmyrugger said:

Huh? You mean exactly like I've been doing?

Yes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
I'm just saying I believe you should get a Vote, which is to say, you should keep being allowed to vote and participate. I wasn't disagreeing with you or anything actually there, I just wanted to suggest the 2ndary portion: the idea that you choose a Tie-breaker if you're "involved" already within the tie.
So uh... Carry on?

Atarus- Why are you suspicious of Mhaye again? I read over Hockey's Posts last night, and she mentioned your accusations as seeming sound, but then she never voted for him. And then she ended up dead. So I'd like to hear your ideas further actually.

pleonast said:

I think scum are less likely to vote for Colonists on a Day One vote then Colonists are. Colonists have no real information to go on and so vote essentially randomly.

Replicants may have a bias against voting for Colonists on Day One, since those voting to kill a Colonist are likely to come under suspicion. Voting for another scum is safer. Since we don't have any confirmed scum, I'll cast my first set of suspicion against those who did not vote for a now-confirmed Colonist:

I dislike this logic. A lot. It just doesn't make sense to me, especially the underlined parts. Actually, no the whole things just... doesn't sound quite right. So are you stating that those who voted for you were voting for Scum? If so, then why shouldn't we just lynch the 2nd highest vote getter, or 3rd or 4th even? I just don't like that train of logic. Because its assuming that scum would NOT vote for a Townie at all. To me, it just feels like odd logic being used to justify some sort of reasoning. But you stated its your own idea, and so... I've already FoSed you, but I'm still gonna have to keep that FOS there, because right now... this just seems weird. Like crap-logic to me.
It's basically giving a Free pass to everyone who killed Zuma, and those that voted for Kat, and Cat. (Which I notice allows you to slip suspicion since you "voted for a Townie" [Kat] therefore should be less suspicious. While at the same time it allows you to blanket FOS everyone that voted for You [but yet, your idea also leaves room for the interpretation that you are Scum and your fellow scum have voted for you.... So I'm not sure why/where you were going with it.)
But if its your system, fine. I just hope you see some of the flaws in it....
*Ah upon review, I see others have raised issues on your plan too. But still. Felt my opinion should be up there.


Episode of Blonde- I listed out HockeyMonkey's Posts on Page one, but I didn't really get to analyze them, feel free to look at them though.

GovRugger- Can we get a Vote explanation with that, sir?

[RoOsh]

Holy crap! there's a 3rd page?!?! NM. Lemme read over this page too. :sigh:

[RoOsh]

Okay, upon reading the 3rd Page.
My ideas are pretty much the same (I am getting a better idea of why Pygmy is voting for pleo).

And Sinjin summed up EXACTLY what I was trying to say about Pleonast's Logic. Though i took it to the other extreme to prove the point.

His +/- system seems like a good idea, but MANY of the +/- are based on HIM. Which is TERRIBLE. So townies are more likely to vote randomly, but if a Townie yells at pleo, they became more suspicious for it, but not if they yelled at someone else? Also, I didn't like a few of the other +/- (namely there was a +1 given to someone who complained about the quantity of posts (that to me (based on the FF game) is just a way for a Fluff post to increase one's post counts while trying to still manage to lurk. All of the Day 1 and 2, posters who were following along, but simply saying "Oh, it's too much to read!" to stay active and raise their counts without gathering suspicious, I would have given that a - point, but you gave it a +). I don't agree with the system.

With that said, currently my FOS list is as such:
Pleonast
Mhaye -Pending Atarus/others ideas. I'm curious to know why he's so suspicious, and why Hockey suddenly dropped this trail.
Dio- Still waiting for his Magic Bag reveal.

If nothing new changes within the next 24-48 hours, I'll be placing my vote with Pleonast. Because nothings changed from Day 1, except that HockeyMonkey who disagreed with him quite a bit, and then wanted to give him some time to wait and see, is dead. And Pleo's next big idea is basically anyone who voted for Hockey is Town, but the people who disagreed/voted for him are probably Scummy, even though by his explanation, the reason they are scummy is because they didn't vote for a post-death confirmed Townie.... Oh, the circular logic....

Yeah, and sorry for the triple post, Double's are fine, but Triples... even I gotta apologize for that.

[Pleonast]

I sometimes get the feeling people don't read my posts carefully.

I didn't say scum never vote for Colonists. I said they are less likely. That's very difference.

My +/- rating isn't how much agree with a point, but how suspicious I think it is. You'll notice that not all points that are anti-Pleonast are marked as scummy. I allow for honest disagreements. It's the suspicious reasoning I mark scummy.

My first cut was those not voting for confirmed Colonists. I'm not a confirmed Colonist, so those voting for me pass the first cut. I'm trying to be transparent.

I'm not giving free passes to anyone. I have limited time resources and I'm using them in what I believe helps the Colony the most. I'm not advocating anyone else use my tactic--group-think is bad. If everyone approached the game dispassionately and transparently, the Colony would create a clear record that will make Replicants easier to find.

[NAF1138]

pleonast said:

My +/- rating isn't how much agree with a point, but how suspicious I think it is. You'll notice that not all points that are anti-Pleonast are marked as scummy. I allow for honest disagreements. It's the suspicious reasoning I mark scummy.

I am picking on you Pleo because I think this is a potentially very good idea, but I think the implementation is a bit lacking. Right now we have a record of what you do and do not think is scummy. I happen to disagree with you on a few of those particuloars, and here is the problem. Wthout knowing why you think a remark is scummy, all I know is that you and I disagree, which frankly tells me nothing.

So while I appreciate the shorthand of the +/- system, further explination of your suspicions would be appreciated. We can talk about the conclusions and your choice of players to anylize at that time.


Meanwhile...where is everybody? We have less than three Day's left and we have less than 3 pages of game.

[Drain Bead]

I'm finding it very difficult to vote for anyone other than Pleonast at this point, and it's mainly because nobody else has been posting. That's a bad reason to vote for someone--as bad as voting for lurkers--but it's hard to plunk a vote down on someone who doesn't give me anything to go on.

I'm also strongly considering voting for Diomedes. Dio did a lot of things yesterDay that pinged my scumdar, but not enough to garner a vote. What I find suspicious is the fact that he's completely vanished now. It's like he got a lot of heat and decided to back off. People are calling him out to explain his post from the Night and he's nowhere to be found. The only thing that's keeping me from a vote is the fact that it was a long holiday weekend and he may still be catching up. But if he could post during the Night, what's keeping him now?

[Death By Irony]

cometothedarkside said:

Death by Irony: Would you care to explain why you find such speculation as a FOS-worthy offense? Or did I miss that somewhere?

Well, in the Psycopaths game, santo rugger was the first to bring up the "why such-and-so died question". I had found it suspicious then (because it felt like the scum were trying to show off how clever they were or whatever), but I didn't follow up on it. He turned up scum.

In the Firefly game, drain bead did something similar, and I FoSed her on it, but again I never persued it further. She also turned up scum.

It's not an ironclad scumtell per se, but certainly a minor ping on my scumdar.

Actually, now that I think about it, Roosh may have been attempting something similar with the post-by-post analysis, so a FoS on Roosh as well.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

NAF - so 2 of my original 3 problems with your list are still outstanding. Regarding the distribution of killing factions, I just want to be clear about the many different possibilities that I think everyone should carry around until given enough justification for process of elimination, which you should then share with the class. Three killing factions is but one of the possibilities, and none have been ruled out, imho.

I'd also like your thoughts on whether or not you think the contents of your claim and Pleo's claim are in any way mutually exclusive, and if so, to what degree?

Pleo: Same question to you regarding NAF.

Santo: pretend you weren't elected Gov, and put yourself in our shoes. A candidate is put in office by a handful of individuals with collectively dubious motivations. In the closing hours of the Day, it becomes quite possible that same individual could both contribute to and single-handed seal the fate of someone's doom. And remember, much of the consensus on the implications of the elected role was to not discuss it until later. So some folks, like myself, may have been a bit slow to make their individual journeys towards some of those implications.

Yes you should vote, just not necessarily Vote, depending on the situation. FWIW, I would pledge to perceive anything you said in a "if I were to vote right now" post with as much weight as an actual vote. You'd have until the end of the Day to decide for yourself if you needed to throw an actual vote down, whatever that vote might be. If a tie occurs without your participation in it, the rest of us have one WIFOM facet removed from our needing to calculate it in our analyses of however you break that tie...we can at least not wonder about any motivations you may or may not have had in contributing to a tie.

To quote the delicious Lena Heady from her role of Queen Gorgo in 300: "It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest rugger, what would a free man do?"

[Santo Rugger]

cometothedarkside said:

<snip>
Yes you should vote, just not necessarily Vote, depending on the situation. FWIW, I would pledge to perceive anything you said in a "if I were to vote right now" post with as much weight as an actual vote. You'd have until the end of the Day to decide for yourself if you needed to throw an actual vote down, whatever that vote might be. If a tie occurs without your participation in it, the rest of us have one WIFOM facet removed from our needing to calculate it in our analyses of however you break that tie...we can at least not wonder about any motivations you may or may not have had in contributing to a tie.

To quote the delicious Lena Heady from her role of Queen Gorgo in 300: "It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest rugger, what would a free man do?"

I fail to see the difference between voting and Voting. It seems to me that your V/voting method would actually give the Guv more power, because not only would they not have to Vote till the end, they don't have to vote where they say they're going to. Now, this isn't a big deal now. But, when I'm gone, if a Replicant takes over as Guv, this effectively gives them not only two votes, but potentially two swing votes. Again, it won't matter in the mid game, but at end game, as Pleo has said, that swing could mean the difference of one vital person to clinch the game for the Reps.

IMHO, you're digging an even deeper hole. Now, it looks to me like you're trying to mold the Guv role in such a fashion as to make the Guv ultra-powerful at endgame.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

And to me, it looks like you could be trying to manipulate the Guv role in an anti-town fashion in the early game. It is all about perspective.

[storyteller0910]

A VOTE COUNT BECAUSE I'M HERE AND I WANT TO POST A VOTE COUNT

Pleonast (3) - Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, sinjin
kassia (1) - NAF1138
mhaye (1) - Pleonast

Five votes have been cast. The Day will end in approximately 65 hours, at 5:00PM EST on Thursday, November 29. Good night, all.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

NETA...

pygmyrugger said:

I fail to see the difference between voting and Voting. It seems to me that your V/voting method would actually give the Guv more power, because not only would they not have to Vote till the end, they don't have to vote where they say they're going to. Now, this isn't a big deal now. But, when I'm gone, if a Replicant takes over as Guv, this effectively gives them not only two votes, but potentially two swing votes. Again, it won't matter in the mid game, but at end game, as Pleo has said, that swing could mean the difference of one vital person to clinch the game for the Reps.

IMHO, you're digging an even deeper hole. Now, it looks to me like you're trying to mold the Guv role in such a fashion as to make the Guv ultra-powerful at endgame.

Voting late and choosing to change one's vote are no more special or potentially dangerous when wielded as options by a Gov than any other player...unless that vote causes or contributes to a tie. And since when is there any guarantee that whoever the endgame Gov ends up being will hold to any expected behavior, whatsoever, regardless of how we play the early and mid game? The motives of a pro-colony Gov change through the game, and I would expect some degree of change in Gov behavior, including some pretty drastic changes of behavior based on two things: closer-to-perfect knowledge and no longer having the primary motivation be to stay alive and keep the seat under Colonist control. An end-game Gov needs to commit themselves however they feel is the best play for a win. Period.

[Santo Rugger]

cometothedarkside said:

<snip>An end-game Gov needs to commit themselves however they feel is the best play for a win. Period.

So does a mid-game Guv.

Now that that's settled, let's try and steer the discussion towards catching scum, instead of clogging up the Day 2 thread with another Guv debate.