|
Post by Chameleon on Aug 12, 2014 0:58:29 GMT -5
When did I say I agreed with Meeko? All I said was that his reasoning was understandable. If I had thought it was a valid vote then I would have followed suit. It's not valid to say that something is understandable? It is all a matter of perspective I suppose. I know that my statement was just another in a long line of poking fun at Meeko's eloquent prose. I also know that Meeko and I suspecting each other based on vapors is best treated as a null tell. This is not our first rodeo together. So I'm not going to throw an OMGUS vote at him at this time. But you on the other hand, I have no metagame/playstyle/banter thingy with, so by anointing an inaccurate interpretation of something I said as reasonable, you have bought yourself a crappy Day 1 vote so that I don't accidentally sleep through Dusk with no skin in the game again. Okay, so I basically get from this that you're voting for me for the sake of having a vote down? Sure, whatever. But I'm still having a hard time understanding why what I said wasn't valid? If you have no metagame/playstyle/banter thingy with me then how can I have an "inaccurate interpretation of something [you've] said as reasonable" if I have no context of what's reasonable, or not, for you?
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 12, 2014 2:15:07 GMT -5
I have to agree that I find Patricia's responses scummy, smudging many to see what sticks. So I'm happy to leave my vote where it is.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Aug 12, 2014 7:10:42 GMT -5
FWIW ... I sense only very slight scum vibes from anyone. But the group includes Dizzy so I'll leave my vote.
Unfortunately, I'm not yet getting town vibes from anyone either.
To me, Patricia's flailing multi-person accusation sounds more like Townie stream of consciousness than Scum contrivance. I'm neutral on Patricia, but leaning slightly Scummy on those voting facilely against her.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 12, 2014 7:46:34 GMT -5
I checked in, and I'm here now...but I'm still waiting on a Role PM so I know which of you I can trust. Did you even get a PM? ha ha ha! for once i understood you. ;-) Testing, 1-2-3, testing, let's see if you can see my posts this time round: Vote CharlyContinuing the gravity theme, I'll cast a random vote on one who's not yet come down to join us for Day 1. Vote Dizzymrslizzy What's the relation between random voting and gravity? Or was it casting a vote? All I have are the same things we have been over a thousand times: lynch the lurker, policy votes, etc. None of which are taboo, and with changing rulesets and groups of players, it's not a bad thing to have players state their preference - it's something to hold them accountable for later in the game... Lurkers - if there's no mod action, gig-bait preferable, policy voting - no, especially since anti-town play isn't the exclusive realm of scum. I voted Dizzy to prod her into posting; she replied immediately [...] Posting in response to a poke or a vote could well be a sign of a lurking scumbag, but I don't think it was as "immediate" as you imply. Aww swammy don't vote meeeeee! You are just holding a grudge from last game. I'm going to Vote: mahaloth for being too expensive for me to buy anything last round Wait. Who's the one holding a grudge here? However THIS. Unvote Vote DizzyGiven non participation killed the last game, I think we're somewhat obliged to adopt a strategy of lynching non participants. On Day 1? If you want to make a poke vote, go ahead, fine, but obliged? I said mid-game frustration, because this was introduced or at least very emphasized mid-game and I thought I'd get screwed over. I didn't(I think), but being the merchant was definitely non-solid. Amen, I hope you were screwed over as much as you attempted to screw over others. So, I'm not going to jump on any of them this early in the game as I have been wrong about Meeko a lot and for the second game in a row - I'm finding him completely understandable. How does that clear the others? I'm not ready to place a vote here either at this time but if nothing else jumps out. Do you have a single opportunity to vote? What's wrong with voting early if you can change later? I think it was a joke, not a grudge. Oh. UnvoteColby this whole post screams scum looking for a place to vote. Anyway, I agree with whoever, that said lack of participation is killing the games so for now I'm going to vote Peeker as he is big part in most of the game he is in and hasn't been around yet day one. I'm totally with Dizzy here, how is Peeker a better vote here? Vote Patriciano, i am still here and should be more available this week. "Here" as in reading along but not bothering to post, or "here" to respond to a poke and fulfil your obligation, or "here" to play? patricia's first post seemed scummy to me when I first read it. Unfortunately, I was not able to write a post at the time. This post is weirding me out, why did you feel the need to say this? There have been so many times I've played and found Patricia scummy right off the bat that I'm reluctant to vote for her because it seems to just be her play style. I've also been right when I found her scummy and no one else did, so everyone finding her scummy also makes me wonder. However, she does seem the most questionable so far, play style or not. While I agree with your eventual vote reasoning, you seem to be giving reasons not to vote Patricia?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Aug 12, 2014 9:33:32 GMT -5
I have no idea who the Scum are, just like (most of) the rest of you. I'm also not naive enough to think that anything someone says at this stage of the game is remotely close to 'proof' of their guilt. Sure, we may get lucky sometimes and catch out a Scum for saying something stupid, but far more often the stupidity is coming out of Townie mouths. The sole benefit of Day 1 conversation comes in the analysis of what was said, and it's not for two or three more Days that it will be of any use, once we have some hard data to start analyzing against.
I'll need to reread the thread so far to see if anything jumps out at me, but for now I will vote swammerdami for suggesting that we try a handshake, because I really, really hate that whole concept.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 12, 2014 10:31:36 GMT -5
I'd like to policy-vote you for policy-voting...
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Aug 12, 2014 10:55:45 GMT -5
Feel free...that's as good a reason as any other (including mine) at this point.
But strictly speaking, mine was not a 'policy vote'. I don't make it a policy of voting for people advocating handshakes; I just hate the idea, and chose it as my basis for voting Today. Does the promotion of the idea make swammerdami statistically more likely to be Scum? Probably not, but for an initial vote, I think 'vehement opposition to the idea' is a good enough basis.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Aug 12, 2014 11:13:54 GMT -5
handshakes; I just hate the idea ... Any particular reason? ... Or is it just blind irrational hatred? (And what if I admit that my impression is your "policy" is just to find any reason to vote swammerdami ? )
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Aug 12, 2014 11:39:19 GMT -5
handshakes; I just hate the idea ... Any particular reason? ... Or is it just blind irrational hatred? (And what if I admit that my impression is your "policy" is just to find any reason to vote swammerdami ? ) Just blind irrational hatred. For the record, that's hatred of the handshaking idea, not of you...though considering my voting record in the first incarnation of this game, I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion Really, it's nothing personal...trust me ETA: I noticed that there was actually another question that you asked... I hate the handshaking concept because I think that it's either completely pointless (in a well-designed game) or gamebreaking (in a not-so-well designed game). In the former situation, the only thing handshaking is likely to produce is to get a bunch of well-meaning Townies trying to kill each other because "my PM has an apostrophe and yours doesn't, so you must be Scum!"...while the Scum just sit back and calmly add fuel to the fire. Yes, we can sometimes glean information from these interactions after the fact, but in my experience the damage done initially is generally greater than the reward that might come after the fact. And the latter situation is simply no fun at all. I'd rather play an enjoyable game and lose, than win by default because the game was broken.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 12, 2014 12:09:02 GMT -5
Okay, so I basically get from this that you're voting for me for the sake of having a vote down? Sure, whatever. But I'm still having a hard time understanding why what I said wasn't valid? If you have no metagame/playstyle/banter thingy with me then how can I have an "inaccurate interpretation of something [you've] said as reasonable" if I have no context of what's reasonable, or not, for you? He's wrong. You seemed to be encouraging him down that path.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 12, 2014 21:30:01 GMT -5
guiri, I don't want to try to quote that post you made, but you said my post was "weirding you out". Why? Because I mentioned that I was unable to post when I first read patricia's post? I realize players can believe me or not, but I did want it to be known that it was my intention to vote her from the time I read it and I wasn't just trying to jump on a bandwagon.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Aug 12, 2014 23:40:33 GMT -5
I sure have a knack for getting voted on Day One! Lucky me. I'm have just been trying to be more active and give my impression of the posts so far this game. As I said my vote on Peeker was a nudge and lo and behold it worked. Therefore, I will Unvote: peeker . And I guess I will state for the record I'm town or Way of the Blue. And a question to my voters... so if you don't post much (my usually MO you get votes, if you do post you get votes - seem you can't win. I'm guessing that I have again stepped on some scum toes - so Colby I guess I will follow your rule#1 Vote: Colby Class is now dismissed from "How to Find Scum 101". You get an F
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 13, 2014 8:08:16 GMT -5
Majula is in need of a VOTE COUNT:
patricia (7 votes) - BillMc, dizzymrslizzy, MentalGuy, sinjin, Colby11, Chameleon, guiri dizzymrslizzy (2 votes) - swammerdami, peekercpa MentalGuy (1 vote) - abstain Chameleon (1 vote) - ...Cookies Colby11 (1 vote) - patricia swammerdami (1 vote) - Suburban Plankton
Day One will end on Thursday, August 14 (that's tomorrow!) at 12:30PM or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 13, 2014 10:59:01 GMT -5
For the record I'm A OK with a Patricia lynch as well, but not inclined to move my vote at this time as she is already well on her way.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Aug 13, 2014 11:29:06 GMT -5
For the record I'm A OK with a Patricia lynch as well, but not inclined to move my vote at this time as she is already well on her way. I'm only so so on it, but I don't see a stronger case. I do find it rather odd you are OK with it but think that you don't need to vote since she is on her way to death. Why not add your vote if you are OK with it? vote patricia
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Aug 13, 2014 11:33:27 GMT -5
For the record I'm A OK with a Patricia lynch as well, but not inclined to move my vote at this time as she is already well on her way. I find this more bothersome then the voters voting for me.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Aug 13, 2014 11:42:01 GMT -5
I sure have a knack for getting voted on Day One! Lucky me. I'm have just been trying to be more active and give my impression of the posts so far this game. As I said my vote on Peeker was a nudge and lo and behold it worked. Therefore, I will Unvote: peeker . And I guess I will state for the record I'm town or Way of the Blue. And a question to my voters... so if you don't post much (my usually MO you get votes, if you do post you get votes - seem you can't win. I'm guessing that I have again stepped on some scum toes - so Colby I guess I will follow your rule#1 Vote: Colby Class is now dismissed from "How to Find Scum 101". You get an F Well Colby if I get a "F" in scum 101 so do all my voters so I have company!!! - If you are not scum why not say so? If I do become the day one fall guy - town will learn a lot with the voting record against me. Hell most of them are voting for me because five RL days before end of day I decided to nudge vote Peeker (who shows up three posts later) and not vote you who at the time I found scummy and still do even if cookies is also looking more scummy by the minute.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 13, 2014 12:18:03 GMT -5
Feel free...that's as good a reason as any other (including mine) at this point. But strictly speaking, mine was not a 'policy vote'. I don't make it a policy of voting for people advocating handshakes; I just hate the idea, and chose it as my basis for voting Today. Does the promotion of the idea make swammerdami statistically more likely to be Scum? Probably not, but for an initial vote, I think 'vehement opposition to the idea' is a good enough basis. OK about not being a policy, maybe meta-vote is a more suitable term? Your vote is based on a strategy disagreement, related to this game but also any game in general, and not an attempt to lynch scum. guiri, I don't want to try to quote that post you made, but you said my post was "weirding you out". Why? Because I mentioned that I was unable to post when I first read patricia's post? I realize players can believe me or not, but I did want it to be known that it was my intention to vote her from the time I read it and I wasn't just trying to jump on a bandwagon. You've explained it yourself, I found it weird that you felt the need to make sure we were all aware that you were not jumping on a bandwagon and would have voted earlier had you been able to. Why the preemptive defence? Why is it so important to be seen to have suspected her earlier rather than later? Is it the third vote thing?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 13, 2014 19:12:13 GMT -5
Because she has a commanding lead and there are more than one who need killing.
This is not a new approach.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 13, 2014 21:57:18 GMT -5
Feel free...that's as good a reason as any other (including mine) at this point. But strictly speaking, mine was not a 'policy vote'. I don't make it a policy of voting for people advocating handshakes; I just hate the idea, and chose it as my basis for voting Today. Does the promotion of the idea make swammerdami statistically more likely to be Scum? Probably not, but for an initial vote, I think 'vehement opposition to the idea' is a good enough basis. OK about not being a policy, maybe meta-vote is a more suitable term? Your vote is based on a strategy disagreement, related to this game but also any game in general, and not an attempt to lynch scum. guiri, I don't want to try to quote that post you made, but you said my post was "weirding you out". Why? Because I mentioned that I was unable to post when I first read patricia's post? I realize players can believe me or not, but I did want it to be known that it was my intention to vote her from the time I read it and I wasn't just trying to jump on a bandwagon. You've explained it yourself, I found it weird that you felt the need to make sure we were all aware that you were not jumping on a bandwagon and would have voted earlier had you been able to. Why the preemptive defence? Why is it so important to be seen to have suspected her earlier rather than later? Is it the third vote thing? I would have liked to vote her as soon as I saw her post. I just felt like that was information I would like to have out there. I didn't realize I was the third vote until you mentioned it. I do actually think the "third vote" theory can be useful in finding scum, so if patricia is Town, I would expect scrutiny. The "third vote" theory will be wrong in this case, but I do think it gives a better than random chance of finding scum normally. I doubt there is any explanation I can give at this point that would keep you from finding my post suspicious, but I do think there is a difference between jumping on a bandwagon and being an original voter for someone. Unfortunately, I was unable to be the latter.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Aug 14, 2014 8:11:28 GMT -5
I've been debating whether to do a Partial Role Claim I'd probably want to do one sooner or later; doing it now means I needn't worry this decision anymore. The claim will be an implicit handshake request. I hope this doesn't spoil the game too much for Suburban Plankton, but I give Storyteller credit: the handshake possibility was probably intentional. I am a " SURVIVOR (Non-Hostile)". Story promised that every Player will have a Power. I have a weak Power that may not help my survival, but might have a slight use for Town and I intend to ally with Town. (Unfortunately, as yet I'm getting strong Town vibes from NONE of you. ) My role PM makes it seem likely that there are one or more others in the same Covenant as myself. We don't act together, or know each other, and our win-cons are independent: my win-con is just MY personal survival, and I assume other members of the Covenant are in the same boat. Nevertheless there might be some advantage to knowing each other. We needn't Lynch each other for one thing! And, we'd be a little like Masons: when one dies and flips, the others, if properly breadcrumbed, would be confirmed as also Non-Hostile Survivors. The name of my Covenant has 4 words, 17 letters. One of the letters in the first word is 'R.' If you are in my Covenant, please send me a PM proving it. I will reciprocate information: If you tell me your special Power, I'll tell you mine, etc. Since the Covenant might have three or more players, please tell me in the PM whether you want your info relayed to a 3rd Covenant member. I'll relay nothing unless BOTH members so indicate.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 14, 2014 10:06:27 GMT -5
Pilgrims?
An unlikely claim for scum...
2 or even 3 survivors in a game of 17 players seems like a lot. I'd be cautious about presuming anyone responding to your call shares your wincon or that your reveal confirms the alignment of the others.
You say your power is useful to town and that you intend to ally with town but you're quite publicly attempting to ally with non-town!
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Aug 14, 2014 11:29:02 GMT -5
sorry, all. RL has been tough. haven't been able to go online much except to post about Robin Williams. :-(
i see that Patricia has an overwhelming lead. i find that she's neither scummy nor townie.
on D1 i believe that most scum will be careful with their posts. i was looking more at bufftabby and mentalguy.
since the latter has been morw active i will Vote: Patricia
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Aug 14, 2014 11:29:22 GMT -5
sorry, all. RL has been tough. haven't been able to go online much except to post about Robin Williams. :-(
i see that Patricia has an overwhelming lead. i find that she's neither scummy nor townie.
on D1 i believe that most scum will be careful with their posts. i was looking more at bufftabby and mentalguy.
since the latter has been morw active i will Vote: bufftabby
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Aug 14, 2014 11:31:11 GMT -5
damn. Unvote: Patricia Vote: bufftabby
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 14, 2014 11:53:04 GMT -5
Because she has a commanding lead and there are more than one who need killing. This is not a new approach. Doesn't make it any more right. The scum motivation not to switch votes, into a bandwagon, to garner fake town cred, is very high.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 14, 2014 12:00:35 GMT -5
I am a " SURVIVOR (Non-Hostile)". Story promised that every Player will have a Power. I have a weak Power that may not help my survival, but might have a slight use for Town and I intend to ally with Town. I am a player, and I have no power or ability.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 14, 2014 12:31:39 GMT -5
OK, re-reading the rules based on Meeko's post, two things: My role PM makes it seem likely that there are one or more others in the same Covenant as myself. We don't act together, or know each other, and our win-cons are independent: my win-con is just MY personal survival, and I assume other members of the Covenant are in the same boat. 1. Swammer is full of it, how can any other player share the goal of swammer surviving the game? I am a player, and I have no power or ability. 2. Meeko is full of it, if every player begins with one or more power: Explanation?
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Aug 14, 2014 12:45:42 GMT -5
1. Swammer is full of it, how can any other player share the goal of swammer surviving the game? I thought the meaning was clear. Suppose another Player, say Guiri for definiteness, is in the same Covenant as Swammi. Then, I infer from my own role PM that Guiri's win-con will be Guiri's survival. You may ask why we are a single Covenant if we have separate win-cons. Ask story, not me. Rightly or wrongly, I'm trying to leverage this Covenant into a quasi-Masonry.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 14, 2014 12:54:26 GMT -5
1. Swammer is full of it, how can any other player share the goal of swammer surviving the game? I thought the meaning was clear. Suppose another Player, say Guiri for definiteness, is in the same Covenant as Swammi. Then, I infer from my own role PM that Guiri's win-con will be Guiri's survival. You may ask why we are a single Covenant if we have separate win-cons. Ask story, not me. Rightly or wrongly, I'm trying to leverage this Covenant into a quasi-Masonry. Right, just like "Guiri's goal is to win the game" and "Swammer's goal is to win the game" so they should both be in the same covenant??? I didn't have a problem with the handshake, although I suspect it's not as meaningful as you make it out to be, but the rules pose a significant doubt on your claim. Story, please clarify your definition of a Covenant as "any group of one or more players collectively dedicated to the same goal – every player belongs to a Covenant (only one at a time), and his or her Covenant usually defines his or her win condition." - can the "same goals" be independent events that use similar terminology but have no relation whatsoever in terms of players from the same covenant winning the game?
|
|