|
Post by sinjin on Jul 8, 2014 17:47:59 GMT -5
Mahaloth: The original deal involved payment after delivery of goods, and also had some stipulations concerning delivery. I can wait. On another note, it is possible that I will die before the other mason(s) have need to out themself/themselves. In case this happens, refer back to this post: dthabdayapfmkdonftdotcdwywitianpatl heakogscleitcaoyuifagcymnuiautfchp utsbntpapiyaa tksiaepbacsamaaalaycttapaattwptksnmaa Any true Mason should be able to explain what one or both of these two strings means, and will thus be able to prove themself without other Masons needing to corroborate. This will only prove that you have communicated via soapstone or on the scum boards or with some other hostile to town group. Sorry for not being here at start of Day. I have had many guests/friends for the 4th who stayed thru this week. In addition I have been trying to get cable internet, unsuccessfully, for the past 3 days. Even though I have three e-mails from TWC with the same order number, no one at TWC can find that order number, bleh.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jul 8, 2014 18:00:04 GMT -5
I don't find it that surprising that scum would kill abstain. While their advantage is the information they have, their disadvantage is the numbers against them. They may have thought it better to reduce those numbers as soon as possible. Getting his soul(s) could have also been motivation. They also do not want to have someone in the game that has the capability of adding players to Town. I still find Suburban Plankton suspicious, for the same reasons as yesterDay. He has given more explanation since then, but I don't find them convincing, especially since they came after he was voted for. I didn't agree with his analysis of abstain, but I did not see anything in it that necessarily indicated scumminess and his vote was apparently for self-preservation which I do not have a problem with. So, while I still find him suspicious, I don't really have anything additional beyond my original suspicions. I find BuffTabby's reluctance to believe that Masons do not have their own sideboard odd. Still, the feeling I get is of someone who has formed an opinion and now is forcing everything to fit that opinion, rather than someone who is scum. I am most suspicious of sinjin. Her vote for abstain joins on a bandwagon and uses misrepresentation and poor reasoning to justify it. Vote: sinjin I am not a Dark Souls player and did not realize how obvious my mention of being deprived would be to players that were. My role is "The Deprived". When I signalled that yesterDay, I was hoping that there was someone in the game that would find that important and contact me. My original plan was to fully claim my role if I was not contacted. I have now, however, opted for a different strategy for the time being. One of the things I am deprived of, though, is soapstones (I have one white). I will offer one soul to whoever offers me the most white soapstones. Can you please identify the my misrepresentations and poor reasoning? You were most suspicious of Suburban P., who just happened to vote for abstain after I did yesterDay, and yet I am your main suspect today? Care to explain that one?
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jul 8, 2014 19:32:49 GMT -5
It would prove that you and that person were able to communicate with each other. It would lend likelihood to you and such a person being in the same covenant as well. What it would not prove is Masonhood, and whether said covenant has changed, or if it was even WotW to begin with. (let's see if I used the auto-quoting correctly; I like how it includes the profile pic) If I'm still alive and another Mason needs to claim, then I'll just say in the thread "Yes, so-and-so is a Mason". It'd still be possible that I'm lying, of course, but such is the way of all masonries. Those code strings will only be relevant if I'm dead, in which case you'll all know my alignment. Yes, if you are dead, I suppose even I will have to believe that you're really a Mason.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 8, 2014 22:08:57 GMT -5
Our Wi Fi Gi just came to our house do a calibration so we have Internet at home again. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) So far, it looks about as slow and flakey as before. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) swammerdami, you started off the Day by saying that you were going to vote him. Does that not imply that you suspected him? I really wonder where you got this, Chroner. Can you point to my post "starting the Day"? It certainly wasn't my first Day 1 post where I showed a "non-Scum lean" on abstain. Something I was very consistent about was advising Abstain that to avoid Lynch he needed to be more forthcoming about his role claim. I've been reprimanded for calling you stupid; I'll take the opposite track and assure you that you're smart enough to understand the distinction ... if you bother to try. In my post #5 I do threaten to vote Abstain if he weren't more forthcoming. I was still trying to save him. The votes against him were founded solely on his confusing incomplete role claim, and might have gone away had he clarified.Let's enumerate my Day 1 messages: - "Abstain suggests that Mental Guy is probably of Class Deprived. I think this is a good inference, and, because they were forthcoming publicly, gives me non-Scum leans on both Mental Guy and Abstain."
- (pro-Abstain)
- "Abstain's post might be viewed as pro-Scum but ... maybe Scum wouldn't do that!
... Information may be the key. Rather than Lynching abstain, wouldn't it be better to do what the interrogators in Guantanamo do?" - (na)
- "I'd like to hear a believable explanation with role PM excerpts, or I'll move my vote."
- "abstain is the more likely to be Town"
- "BTW, my friends call me Swammi.
... I've offered Abstain advice on how to get Unvotes. If he remains vote leader near EOD I'll probably switch to save him." - "Maybe I'm just a sucker for a slick claim, but now I don't think either Chroner or Abstain is a good Lynch."
- (na)
- (na)
- (My final Day 1 post is reproduced in entirety below.)
Abstain's role of recruitment facilitator, assuming it's true, could be a useful role for Town. And such a role would also be very "interesting" for a Townie if he needs to guess whether a recruitment attempt is to switch from hostile to non-hostile or vice versa. (Is that the case?) A 3rd-party with that role would find it much less interesting -- a 3rd-party wouldn't care much whether a player switches or not. And the role would be of much less relevance to Scum: a Scum recruitment facilitator would accept any applicant to Scum and reject, if that's an option, any defection attempt. Recall that recruitments to Town are quite "rare." Thus, if the role exists at all, I think game designer would make it a Town role, much less likely a 3rd-party role, and extremely unlikely to be a Scum role. (I think it is quite valid to guess about the roles game designer creates.) This assumes abstain's role claim is true -- but it doesn't seem like a role to concoct as fiction. Thus I believe abstain. I agree that the way he suspects Plankton but then votes Colby without reason is quite odd. But what is the Scum motive for it?For these reasons I look with suspicion on those who keep their votes on abstain. I didn't expect anyone to follow, or even to bother to read, this post (except to skim it to see if they can detect scum-sense from Swammi), but if I can figure out that Abstain's play and role make sense only as Townie, then so can others. Abstain was a very bad Lynch yesterDay. The bad Lynch was caused in part by low participation. It should be no surprise that Scum grabbed his souls (and whatever else they could get) before Town came to its senses. I still lack a clear idea of Abstain's power but it might have been very valuable for Town. I do not have a strong Scum read on Plankton but he was obviously(*) a better Lynch yesterDay than Abstain or Chroner; not to Vote was anti-Town and Scumlike. (Even if Plankton is Town, Scum wouldn't want to move their votes to him and get on a misLynching wagon.) (* - Several excellent Players participated only a little, but presumably would know Abstain was likely Town. If I was remiss in not repeating my arguments, do tell me. I've never detected any interest among other Players in following Swammi's arguments.) I started playing Mafia not so solve puzzles -- (I'm a professional puzzle composer and could make many $1000s in the time it takes to play a Mafia game) -- but to practice my inter-human communication skills. Obviously progress there is very slow. ![(puke)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sick.png) YesterDay I made a point of going to Internet cafe to check on the game, and saw only one accusatory post. It was against me; the very guy who tried to persuade the anti-Town Townies to remove their pro-Scum votes! I did lose my temper. (And I think Chroner's aware of some context ... a few SDMB threads where he was insufferably rude to me and never deigned to apologize.) Fittingly, the comment on my use of "stupid" isn't directed at my well-known rudeness, but at my possible Scummitude in this Game.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jul 9, 2014 8:06:13 GMT -5
Vote totals:
swammerdami(1): Chronos[19] sinjin(1): MentalGuy[25]
Does Day Two end tomorrow, THURSDAY, JULY 10 at 12:30PM Eastern time, OR Does Day Two end on FRIDAY, JULY 11 at 12:30PM Eastern time??
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 9, 2014 8:08:47 GMT -5
Why extend it?
Anyway, I'll be traveling to California today, but should have wifi access after we arrive. I'll be slightly less available, but it should barely affect my game.
The shop is still open!
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 9, 2014 9:21:50 GMT -5
It's not a question of extending it, but rather a clarification of the End date. We've been told that the Day ends on Thursday, July 11. The problem is; Thursday is July 10. So Day either ends Thursday the 10th, or Friday the 11th.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 9, 2014 9:37:44 GMT -5
I think that Abstain was a reasonable choice for a Scum kill. They would have obtained his soul and gotten rid of a player with the ability to swell the Town ranks. There's also the possibility that they didn't believe his claim, and saw him as a more direct threat. I was expecting slightly more carnage overNight though...so I suspect that there was plenty of activity going on that we are not aware of just yet. So with the clarification that the soul is only collected when someone dies (not hollowed), then I agree Abstain would have been the obvious choice for a scum kill.....thus the obvious choice for any town watcher.....and indeed the obvious choice for mahaloth to track.....if abstain was truthful about his power....which I guess came from a sorcery or miracle....but mahaloth has not offered new stock. And if mahaloth did not track abstain - I'd really like to know who he thought was a better target to be hollowed and killed in one night Mahaloth did spend a good part of the Day offering to sell his Tracking service to the highest bidder. It's possible that he received an offer and tracked a would-be killer's target, who for some reason (roleblock, doctor, etc.) was not actually killed. That would leave Mahaloth without new stock, but with information about a possible failed kill attempt.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jul 9, 2014 10:42:27 GMT -5
I'm really struggling with Mahaloth's role and willingness to help the highest bidder, independent of alignment. I'd to simply ignore him and move on but his spam and approach to the game are irritating me, I hope someone has a efficient and effective way to remove him from the game, soon. I don't see how anyone would trust him. As for abstain, Oswald the pardoner, if scum are unable to leave their covenant, I can see why they wouldn't want others to do so. Reminds of why I voted Meeko, amazingly no comment from him on my vote, good enough reason to revote him. Vote MeekoBetween that and what I know of the Town's powers (I don't know if Story realized how powerful he was making us), we're in really good shape. Did I miss an earlier revelation? Or is this related to the masonry only? Well that's rather sucky ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) I was hoping we'd get to see more of what you could do Abstain. Really? And I'll promise to keep information confidential unless the sender gives me discretion. For that reason I won't comment on whether Abstain and I exchanged any PM's. He did send me a very brief one-sentence PM. My main reaction was surprise he'd spend a soapstone to say so little. Apparently only while they are living? Requiring players to pay to communicate is more reason to limit mason off-board communications. To continue this conversation from yesterDay: How so? Masons don't require off board communications, their value is knowing that the others are guaranteed town, so it's simply a perk. Forcing everyone, including masons, to pay to communicate with others means off board communications are deemed valuable and soapstones act as a form of currency. I don't expect to convince you that you are entirely mistaken about Chronos but do not share your incredulity of his claim based on this aspect.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 9, 2014 12:35:55 GMT -5
@colby They make the decision, and it is a decision they make when they like. I simply just release them forced servitude. What does this mean? Who exactly are in "forced servitude"? I will share one last point of info - covenants themself may offer recruitment. I am not the recruiter of twow (I would not have claimed anything if so) and there very well may not be one. But there are other covenants that offer recruitment for whatever end. I would like to not be killed and believe I have the means to help twow as I believe in my role PM, they are automatically offered that recruitment, and any others if approached. So you can't help anyone join TWOTW but you know other covenants can recruit. So essentially you are saying that you can release someone from their present covenant to join another covenant that is not TWOTW. How exactly is that supposed to help TWOTW? Internet is pretty bad here. I don't necessarily believe Chronos - his strategy doesn't make too much sense as a mason, and claiming mason doesn't mean too much, I've seen scum claim it d1 and I've done it d1 myself. However I will not put my vote there. Tarkus being a mason is interesting.... I think Swammer is town. Suburban is a fine vote to me. Unvote: sinjin Vote: colbyI believe the problem Chronos has with your colby vote is that it's tagged on at the end with no reasoning associated with it even though you mentioned that Surbuban is a fine vote. Very weird. Why are you so sure that Swammer is town? Two folks have said they can change covenants given certain conditions, Maha and Chronos, neither have mentioned they need a facilitator to do that. Your role seems useless to TWOTW. You seem scummier and scummier with every post. Vote: abstainI don't find it that surprising that scum would kill abstain. While their advantage is the information they have, their disadvantage is the numbers against them. They may have thought it better to reduce those numbers as soon as possible. Getting his soul(s) could have also been motivation. They also do not want to have someone in the game that has the capability of adding players to Town. I still find Suburban Plankton suspicious, for the same reasons as yesterDay. He has given more explanation since then, but I don't find them convincing, especially since they came after he was voted for. I didn't agree with his analysis of abstain, but I did not see anything in it that necessarily indicated scumminess and his vote was apparently for self-preservation which I do not have a problem with. So, while I still find him suspicious, I don't really have anything additional beyond my original suspicions. I find BuffTabby's reluctance to believe that Masons do not have their own sideboard odd. Still, the feeling I get is of someone who has formed an opinion and now is forcing everything to fit that opinion, rather than someone who is scum. I am most suspicious of sinjin. Her vote for abstain joins on a bandwagon and uses misrepresentation and poor reasoning to justify it. Vote: sinjin I am not a Dark Souls player and did not realize how obvious my mention of being deprived would be to players that were. My role is "The Deprived". When I signalled that yesterDay, I was hoping that there was someone in the game that would find that important and contact me. My original plan was to fully claim my role if I was not contacted. I have now, however, opted for a different strategy for the time being. One of the things I am deprived of, though, is soapstones (I have one white). I will offer one soul to whoever offers me the most white soapstones. Can you please identify the my misrepresentations and poor reasoning? You were most suspicious of Suburban P., who just happened to vote for abstain after I did yesterDay, and yet I am your main suspect today? Care to explain that one? The main thing that has changed is that I now know you were voting for a member of TWOTW. Suburban voted abstain, but supposedly did so out of self preservation. He claimed to think that abstain was trying to get himself lynched and believed he was third party. I understood "forced servitude" to mean that you were stuck in whatever team you were assigned. You seem to be trying to make it appear that abstain was hiding some information when he used that phrase. You say "So you can't help anyone join the TWOTW", when he said specifically that he thought he could. He said he did not offer recruitment, not that he could not facilitate the transfer. He specifically said that he thought that players could be offered TWOTW recruitment automatically. Maha and Chronos have not talked about how they would switch covenants if they did so, but they have no reason to and they have not contradicted abstain. If they had said, "that is not how we switch covenants", then that would have been a big red flag. I will withdraw the "poor reasoning" part of my accusation, since if you actually believed what you wrote (I don't think you did), then it could make sense to vote for abstain.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jul 9, 2014 12:40:05 GMT -5
To continue this conversation from yesterDay: How so? Masons don't require off board communications, their value is knowing that the others are guaranteed town, so it's simply a perk. Forcing everyone, including masons, to pay to communicate with others means off board communications are deemed valuable and soapstones act as a form of currency. I don't expect to convince you that you are entirely mistaken about Chronos but do not share your incredulity of his claim based on this aspect. Do you think Mafia has to pay for off-board communications? They already know who one another are, so that would just be a perk, right? I'm not convinced by his claim, but it seems you are. Why are you so certain? (If you're a Mason, no, I don't want you to claim as such.) In a game with multiple factions, it seems even more presumptuous to me than usual to take a Mason claim at face value. I think "incredulity" is a strong word for my lack of faith in Chronos's claim; I'm pretty "incredulous" at the Townieness of everybody at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jul 9, 2014 13:09:35 GMT -5
Mahaloth did spend a good part of the Day offering to sell his Tracking service to the highest bidder. It's possible that he received an offer and tracked a would-be killer's target, who for some reason (roleblock, doctor, etc.) was not actually killed. That would leave Mahaloth without new stock, but with information about a possible failed kill attempt. So given Abstain was the only one hollow - the "would be killer" would have had to be able to totally kill (not just hollow) for mahaloth to profit. And I can't see such a killing power being in the hands of the town. While Mahaloth is stating that everything is confidential and trying to be a neutral 3rd party - if he knew the identify of such a killer, withholding that information would be anti-town; and mahaloth's competitor has chosen to remain quiet. Emit Force and Burning Eye appear to have been sold; and it is unclear from mahaloth's pm whether transactions only take place at dusk or dawn or both; tho his comments around replenishment would suggest that it is both; so someone could have purchased emit yesterday and used it last night.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 9, 2014 13:41:27 GMT -5
I'm surprised to here guiri say I've been irritating. I'm just trying to enjoy the role and keep things fun(and of course win). Sorry if that has bothered anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 9, 2014 14:05:52 GMT -5
1. Guess who has two thumbs and can't read a calendar? Day ends at 12:30PM tomorrow, Thursday, July 10th. Not the 11th. The 10th. Sigh.
2. I'd like to send prods to everyone who's not been participating, but it'd take half the day to send that many separate PMs. An awful lot of players are AWOL; the game is not balanced to accommodate this level of nonparticipation and it will not survive it. If you know someone who is in the game but isn't here playing it, please urge them to rejoin.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jul 9, 2014 15:24:39 GMT -5
Mahaloth, it's obviously nothing personal, it really is your role, which I'm inclined to believe, and how you've decided to play it: you're standing there willing to give stuff to the highest bidder, keep their kill targets secret, and entirely oblivious to the goings-on of the game. I see how much you can potentially hurt town, how little you care because you have your own little game going on, and I'd like to find a way to stop it or neutralise you but I don't consider you a priority, yet. It just feels like a neutral third party would not affect the town/scum balance, but you can. bufftabby, based on that aspect. I'm not convinced of Chronos' claim and I'm not trying to convince you either, I just disagree that his lack of offboard communications has any influence on the truthfulness of his claim.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jul 9, 2014 16:20:21 GMT -5
i kind of have to agree with guiri on this one. back in the day "masons" typically didn't communicate off board. their power was just in knowing who each of them were not a general sharing of strategy.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jul 9, 2014 16:20:25 GMT -5
What does this mean? Who exactly are in "forced servitude"? So you can't help anyone join TWOTW but you know other covenants can recruit. So essentially you are saying that you can release someone from their present covenant to join another covenant that is not TWOTW. How exactly is that supposed to help TWOTW? I believe the problem Chronos has with your colby vote is that it's tagged on at the end with no reasoning associated with it even though you mentioned that Surbuban is a fine vote. Very weird. Why are you so sure that Swammer is town? Two folks have said they can change covenants given certain conditions, Maha and Chronos, neither have mentioned they need a facilitator to do that. Your role seems useless to TWOTW. You seem scummier and scummier with every post. Vote: abstainCan you please identify the my misrepresentations and poor reasoning? You were most suspicious of Suburban P., who just happened to vote for abstain after I did yesterDay, and yet I am your main suspect today? Care to explain that one? The main thing that has changed is that I now know you were voting for a member of TWOTW. Suburban voted abstain, but supposedly did so out of self preservation. He claimed to think that abstain was trying to get himself lynched and believed he was third party. I understood "forced servitude" to mean that you were stuck in whatever team you were assigned. You seem to be trying to make it appear that abstain was hiding some information when he used that phrase. You say "So you can't help anyone join the TWOTW", when he said specifically that he thought he could. He said he did not offer recruitment, not that he could not facilitate the transfer. He specifically said that he thought that players could be offered TWOTW recruitment automatically. Maha and Chronos have not talked about how they would switch covenants if they did so, but they have no reason to and they have not contradicted abstain. If they had said, "that is not how we switch covenants", then that would have been a big red flag. I will withdraw the "poor reasoning" part of my accusation, since if you actually believed what you wrote (I don't think you did), then it could make sense to vote for abstain. Well good that you now know that abstain was a member of TWOTW, I too know that, but did not know it yesterDay! Abstain NEVER said that he thought that players could be offered TWOTW recruitment automatically. What he said was: Serious question, are some of you intentionally misreading my posts, or do you not understand what I am saying? I do NOT recruit or convert people. NOT. N-O-T. I ALLOW people to leave their covenant. ALLOW. A-L-L-O-W. (Enable is also a suitable word). THEY make the decision to leave, I just give them the choice. THEY. T-H-E-Y. I can't make them do ANYTHING! Of course I have no intention of actually using this power until I have a target, but I wanted to make sure that the potential parties that could benefit knew about it. I will share one last point of info - covenants themself may offer recruitment. I am not the recruiter of twow (I would not have claimed anything if so) and there very well may not be one. But there are other covenants that offer recruitment for whatever end. I would like to not be killed and believe I have the means to help twow as I believe in my role PM, they are automatically offered that recruitment, and any others if approached. What does this mean? Who exactly are in "forced servitude"? it is a terrible analogy - look: player a is in covenant b, i do my thing, he suddenly has the ability to leave cov b for cov a (wotw) or cov c (if they've tried to recruit him afaik?) OR he can continue to be in cov b. I just give them an oppurtunity.So you can't help anyone join TWOTW but you know other covenants can recruit. So essentially you are saying that you can release someone from their present covenant to join another covenant that is not TWOTW. How exactly is that supposed to help TWOTW? NO! I can release them to join TWOTW OR another covenant that has attempted to recruit them. I release them from their vows but they can continue to volunteer.I believe the problem Chronos has with your colby vote is that it's tagged on at the end with no reasoning associated with it even though you mentioned that Surbuban is a fine vote. Very weird. Why are you so sure that Swammer is town? Two folks have said they can change covenants given certain conditions, Maha and Chronos, neither have mentioned they need a facilitator to do that. Your role seems useless to TWOTW. You seem scummier and scummier with every post. Vote: abstainI agreed sub was a fine vote, I voted colby for the posts he had made previous and he playing style so far, etc.
I think swammer is town because of what he has posted. Simple.
ooooh two roles don't need me, doesn't mean others don't. you don't know of others don't just assume they are the only two. stupid to base a vote of an assumption like that.Sinjin has only gotten worse in my opinion. The above vote/post is very bad. He states that he DOESN"T know if there is a TWOTW recruiter but he DOES know that there are other covenant recruiters!!! Why would I not find that very suspicious? Why did you not find that suspicious yesterDay? Why are you misrepresenting what abstain actually said? Being recruited to TWOTW is supposed to be a "rare" event, not something that automagically happens.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jul 9, 2014 16:33:40 GMT -5
I want to address this statement by MentalGuy seperately:
Chronos and Maha both stated under what conditions they could leave their covenents. And storyteller explicitely stated how TWOTW may leave:
No facilitator needed.
Vote: vote MentalGuy
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 9, 2014 18:02:20 GMT -5
Am I counting correctly, that there are now four votes, for four different people? With the Day ending in less than 24 hours, that's pretty pathetic. I didn't mean your very first post of the day; I meant posts like where you said you were going to vote for abstain if he didn't provide more info. And yes, you suggested ways he could provide evidence of his Towniness-- That doesn't mean you're defending him. When I suggest to someone a way they could provide evidence, and then they don't, if anything I take it as a sign that they don't have the evidence because it's not true. It turns out it was true in this case, but that's not how it looked yesterDay: abstain looked more scummy at the end of the Day, not less. I'm not aware of ever interacting with you on the SDMB, unless you use a different name there, and I probably did not intend to be rude, whoever you are. My apologies now if I've come across that way. Guiri, I understand what you're saying about Mahaloth. I realize that he'll help Scum if the price is right, and he's therefore not entirely trustworthy. At the same time, though, he'll also help Town for a price, which I think works out, on net, to be neutral. I mean, if I had a choice between Mahaloth dying or a known Townie, I'd want him dead, but I don't think he's worth expending any resources that could be used against an actual enemy. And the only Town powers I know of for sure are those in the masonry. But those powers, together with this ruleset, work out to be extremely powerful. As in, if we were the only power roles in the game, Town would win in a cakewalk. Now, of course, we're not the only powers in the game, and I don't think that the game is that poorly balanced. Which suggests that whatever the Scum have, it's pretty powerful, too. I'd really like to know just what they have, because it's driving me crazy trying to figure out what they might have, and how to deal with it. MentalGuy, the Masons have no special knowledge of how recruitment normally happens, beyond what's in the public rules. Most likely, there is one or more recruiter roles, and they target people. If you're targeted and eligible, then you can choose to join them. Some people will be ineligible: Mahaloth apparently can't be recruited unless the other merchant is dead and in the lead, and Masons can't be recruited unless there's only one of us left. Most Townies (other than Masons) apparently have no eligibility requirement, given that our covenant has "To leave: Simply join any other covenant". I guess abstain was able to waive or fulfill some or all of those requirements. I'm still not sure how that's supposed to be useful to Town, but it's moot now.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jul 9, 2014 18:16:36 GMT -5
I'm leaving early tomorrow morning for a business trip, so I want to go ahead and get a vote down before time runs out. I found Chronos to be the most suspicious yesterDay, and nothing has happened to change that. Here's my vote post from yesterDay; the reasoning remains the same. abstain, what makes you think that any member of an anti-Town faction will take up your offer? I mean, I'd like to hear that, too, but I don't think it's remotely realistic to expect it. And what do you mean by "hostile to the way of white" "(who isn't the mafia obviously)"? We know that there exists at least one hostile covenant (because otherwise, White would already have won), but that's all we know: There might be exactly one hostile covenant, or there may be more, and there may be zero, one, or more covenants which resemble a traditional "mafia". Why do you particularly think such a player wouldn't take abstain up on the offer? IMO, any individual might or might not, but what is it that made you so doubtful that an anti-WotW would possibly do so? (I know this is an older post, and came before abstain's claim that he releases players from covenants, but I'm still interested in the answer.) I'm perfectly willing to keep abstain alive for the moment, since it sounds like he could potentially increase WotW numbers. Nothing he's claimed so far seems necessarily anti-Town to me. Yes, I get that he's said he can "help" those who are anti-WotW. If he can help them on over to the WotW, or even out of a hostile covenant and into a non-hostile one, I would consider that pro-WotW. I often hate the claim that "scum wouldn't do that!" but I'm inclined to believe that scum wouldn't dance a jig on over to the cutting block as soon as the game starts. I also don't find it particularly suspicious that Chronos (and others) would want to vote for abstain, either. This, however: Lynching anti-Town third party absolutely does help Town. I agree that it's pretty likely that he's third party, but that doesn't mean he's friendly. As for folks on the Town team who play anti-Town, they should be lynched, too. Yes, it's unfortunate to lynch Townies, but the problem is, we don't know anyone's alignment, just how they act. If someone's acting in a way that hurts Town, then the simplest explanation is that they want to hurt Town. And if we don't punish overtly anti-Town play, then we're giving Scum a license to do it. Much better to force the Scum to help Town, lest they be lynched. That sounds scummy as hell to me. Sometimes Town players are going to get lynched for "anti-Town" behavior, sure. But your talk of "punishing" such behavior doesn't sound like a good thing for Town. I'd rather figure out if a player seems "anti-Town" because they are, or if I just disagree with their methods/strategies/etc. "Punishing" Town by lynch does not benefit Town. And this is precisely why it's useless to look for Scum motivation. Every action ever has scum motivation. If the action is one that hurts Town, then the motivation is that Scum want to hurt Town, and if the action is one that helps Town, the motivation is that Scum want to blend in. But not every action has Town motivation, since Town never wants to hurt Town. So if you see someone acting to hurt Town, they might just be screwing up, but it's a better than random bet that they're not Town. If you are Town and vote someone for acting in a way you believe to be anti-Town, but that person turns out to be Town after all...haven't you just acted to hurt Town? Does that make you any less Town? Should you be suitably "punished"? vote Chronos
|
|
Meeko
FGM ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Jul 9, 2014 19:27:48 GMT -5
I'm really struggling with Mahaloth's role and willingness to help the highest bidder, independent of alignment. I'd to simply ignore him and move on but his spam and approach to the game are irritating me, I hope someone has a efficient and effective way to remove him from the game, soon. I don't see how anyone would trust him. I hope someone has a efficient and effective way to remove him from the game, soon. You do. It's called the vote.You do it like this. Vote: GuiriUnless, of course, you are more trusting of Mahaloth than you are letting on.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 9, 2014 19:39:48 GMT -5
Nothing? Really? I know that you don't believe my claim, but it's not "nothing". And nobody else has raised your suspicions at all? Voting for a difference in strategy, and then carrying over that exact same vote for another Day, is awfully lazy at best. And you're even voting using my strategy (or rather, using a bizarre misinterpretation of it) even while you say you disagree with it. Do you have any reasons for voting me that you think are good reasons?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jul 9, 2014 21:19:38 GMT -5
For the love of OG is this what we have come to? 5 votes for 5 different people including one on a claimed mason? Really? People Really?
Unvote: all
Vote: bufftabby
Gah I hate this shit.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 9, 2014 23:08:40 GMT -5
Non-activity will kill this game. Engaging is pro-Town; inactivity is pro-Scum and anti-Game. Killing Lurkers randomly won't improve the game, but if we can find Lurking Scum, let's Lynch! For the love of OG is this what we have come to? 5 votes for 5 different people including one on a claimed mason? Really? People Really? OK. How about 6 votes for 6 different people: Vote: nesta Hello everyone. It seems I'm the sub for Silver Jan. It's too bad she wasn't able to play, but I'm glad I get a chance to. I've been following along, so I'm not quite coming in cold. I've been reading in spectator mode rather than player mode, however, so I need to do a re-read and pay more attention to who it was that said what. I'm surprised abstain hasn't full claimed yet. I guess since he won't actually be dead after the lynch he hasn't felt the need. I also share Suburban Plankton's feeling that there's something off about his play Today, as if he knew he was setting himself up for a lynch. He's most likely going to be lynched regardless of my vote, but since I don't have time for a re-read before Day end, and as a spectator I've been agreeing that he should probably be lynched, I'll: Vote: abstain ... Nesta was more active before starting to play, took the easy vote, snuggled with possible-Scum Plankton....
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 9, 2014 23:35:55 GMT -5
Nesta was more active before starting to play, took the easy vote, snuggled with possible-Scum Plankton.... Well, I did sub in right before a holiday weekend where I ended up busier than expected, but whatever. I've spent tonight (RL) re-reading the game to catch up, so I'll have some real participation in soon. The irony is I was in the middle of composing a post defending you when you posted this. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I do agree, though, that with the level of participation in this game that there are probably scum with very little activity. I would like to point out that I had zero posts before starting to play, so my one real post and another fluff one should count as more active than when I was a spectator.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 9, 2014 23:51:27 GMT -5
The irony is I was in the middle of composing a post defending you when you posted this. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I do agree, though, that with the level of participation in this game that there are probably scum with very little activity. Well, thanks! One other Player thought I was Town -- but look what happened to him. ![B-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/notamused.png) I'll wait a bit before unVoting you. To do so quickly would just attract more Scum allegations against me. ![8-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/nerd.png)
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 10, 2014 0:24:22 GMT -5
I didn't say I thought you were town -- my feeling that you might be anti-town has just been lessened since I re-read and found that you were more consistent in your views about abstain than I had remembered. I hope you're town, though, since at least you are active. ![:)](http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-051.gif ) Here's the post I was composing: BTW, my friends call me Swammi. BTW, my friends call me Swammi. Is this some code I'm missing? I'll call you Swammi if you prefer. ![:)](http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-051.gif ) Your exchanges with abstain Yesterday did seem strange to me. You said (in d1.71): I'm not a recruiter, I can't make anyone do anything. But I can allow people to leave their covenant however they make the choice to leave. Since most Players are White, and joining the White is "rare" for non-Whites, and "never" happens for deserters, your power would seem appropriate for Scum or 3rd Party. Oh and I'm town, not third party. Yet this Power, which seems likely to be anti-Town, was given to a Townie? Odd. I'd like to hear a believable explanation with role PM excerpts, or I'll move my vote. And in d1.98, you you posted: I'll eventually have to decide between the two Lynch candidates, but I don't have a real Scum read on either. I guess abstain is the more likely to be Town -- mostly because of the confident way he says he's Town. (Yes, I'm gullible.) But chronos has a good point. Without further explanation, abstain's offer appears to be anti-Town, not pro-Town. I'd like more information from abstain: why does he think his solicitation is pro-Town? Can he assist Players to join Town? To leave or to join Scum? To switch from one non-Hostile Covenant to another? What is the nature of his help: information, advice, or special power? Vague messages that seem anti-Town cannot be defended with nothing better than "I must be Town! Scum wouldn't post something so obviously anti-Town!" ![:-*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/smilies/smack.gif) But later you seemed to trust that abstain was town. In d1.131: The players least likely to be hostile (other than Swammi!) are Mahaloth Abstain Some puzzle over Abstain's pro-Town motive. I can guess a pro-Town motive but don't want to put words in his mouth. Players will engage Abstain with PMs eventually, and Scum will learn more about his power than Town! -- why not make info public? Here's an alternative suggestion that might address his doubters: abstain: Pick one of your voters -- whichever you think least likely to be Scum -- and send them a private message with info you're unwilling to make public. Hope he publishes "I won't reveal Abstain's secret, but now trust him." If you can convince one. others may follow. |
While I was a spectator I thought there was something strange in your mutual trust. I still do, and think it's probably tied into some soapstone messages. After a re-read, though, I think you're stance on abstain has been consistent: that he was likely town but should reveal more information to prove it. It's a shame he didn't do so, but I think you tried to convince him to save himself. Now that he's confirmed town, I also have to think his trust in you was sincere. He posted in d1.168: I do wonder, though, why you haven't revealed what his sent you? Town is usually at an information disadvantage, so the more we can get the better. Is there a reason that his short message to you wouldn't be helpful to town?
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 10, 2014 0:39:30 GMT -5
I am not a Dark Souls player and did not realize how obvious my mention of being deprived would be to players that were. My role is "The Deprived". When I signalled that yesterDay, I was hoping that there was someone in the game that would find that important and contact me. My original plan was to fully claim my role if I was not contacted. I have now, however, opted for a different strategy for the time being. One of the things I am deprived of, though, is soapstones (I have one white). I will offer one soul to whoever offers me the most white soapstones. MentalGuy, is Deprived your covenant, or your name? If it's only your name I find it odd that you would think that would be a reason for someone to contact you. If it's your covenant, then that makes you third-party or scum. Have you been contacted? Maybe your plan of a full claim was better. If you have a soapstone I assume you could reply to any contact. Why are more soapstones necessary now?
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 10, 2014 1:05:20 GMT -5
Well, thanks! One other Player thought I was Town -- but look what happened to him. ![B-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/notamused.png) I didn't say I thought you were town -- my feeling that you might be anti-town has just been lessened since I re-read and found that you were more consistent in your views about abstain than I had remembered. OK, I've thought about it a little more, and I'm putting you in my "could possibly be town" column. I hope that doesn't make me the next to die. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 10, 2014 1:54:30 GMT -5
I'm really struggling with Mahaloth's role and willingness to help the highest bidder, independent of alignment. I'd to simply ignore him and move on but his spam and approach to the game are irritating me... And I'll promise to keep information confidential unless the sender gives me discretion. For that reason I won't comment on whether Abstain and I exchanged any PM's. He did send me a very brief one-sentence PM. My main reaction was surprise he'd spend a soapstone to say so little. Apparently only while they are living? It does seem plausible you're Mahaloth's competitor, hoping for an easy victory. But, guessing both Maha and his alleged competitor are neutral 3rd Parties, this isn't a reason to Vote you. I'm not sure what to make of your snark about my confidentiality promise. I don't see how it's anti-Town, or a breach of trust, to reveal information from a dead Townie that's unhelpful to Scum. Long term, I suppose all PM's will be made accessible once the game is over. And since there's a 2nd request I'm tempted to reveal the entirety of Abstain's brief PM. I'll include it in a soapstone message to someone I'm pretty sure is Town, if there ever is such a person. I'll keep it secret publicly just in case the slight info still has value to Scum. Despite its tersity I took his PM as Townie. But it didn't matter -- by then I was rather confident of Abstains's Towniness. Yes, my views evolved in the absence of any evidence (other than Abstain's continued reticence.) As I said earlier, I'm a slow thinker.
|
|