|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 16:58:21 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 31, 2008 16:58:21 GMT -5
Yay! I was hoping someone would flip the page before I needed to go home.
Greedy Smurf (2) : hawkeyeop, storyteller0910 koldanar (6) : Diomedes, diggitcamara, RoOsh, drainbead, piratepete, atarus NAF1138 (1) : Cookies Pleonast (1) : Greedy Smurf piratepete (3) : Hockey Monkey, koldanar, CatInASuit No Lynch (1) : Pleonast
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 17:12:02 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 31, 2008 17:12:02 GMT -5
Yes, I am being very ego centric and addressing things that directly affect me first. Sorry bout that. I will get to other stuff too. Those thoughts take a little longer to percolate. 2. NAF1138 - your meta-game vote and issue with Cookies. You were voting on someone's playing style after they have played 1/2 a mafia game. If you are correct, you are a better spot of character than I. As for your problem with Cookies. I don't find her current actions scummy, far less doing the scum's work. Which is why I will point it out. Put another way, your methods for finding scum don't work on Cookies, that doesn't mean it affects the rest of us. Hence your problem, not hers. To part 1: votes early in the game are more about getting a reaction and furthering your read on a person then being right. I think my vote for Hawk did an admirable job. I noticed something, I acted on it, he responded as did others. It's how the opening of the game is played. To part 2: cookies voting for me because of a VERY early meta game post was (it seems to me) her jumping on a hot button topic (metagaming, alway gets a lot of traction) that would make me an easy lynch target early in Day 1. I'm sorry, but voting for a person for an early meta game vote that later changes, is as bad a reason to vote for someone as metagame or random voting. It at the very least, isn't helpful to the town. At least not if you are going to stick doggedly by your vote. My problem is, while I find this to be patently anit town, I only ever see Cookie pull this crap when she is pro town. So I have learned to treat Cookies as the exception to most of my scumdar rules. The fact that town members are unable to identify that as a scummy vote is part of the reason why town is losing in the SDMB game right now. (Although some are learning) The fact that actual town members are doing that sort of stuff is the rest of it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 18:44:38 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 31, 2008 18:44:38 GMT -5
*snipped quote disclaimer* I'm sorry, but voting for a person for an early meta game vote that later changes, is as bad a reason to vote for someone as metagame or random voting. It at the very least, isn't helpful to the town. At least not if you are going to stick doggedly by your vote. My problem is, while I find this to be patently anit town, I only ever see Cookie pull this crap when she is pro town. So I have learned to treat Cookies as the exception to most of my scumdar rules. Um...how exactly was I supposed to know that your vote would eventually change at the time that I made my vote? And even though it did change, I happen to agree with Roosh as to the suspicious nature of your response to my vote then and now, which is why my vote is still on you. You are not the only one able to cast Day 1 votes and analyze the reactions to them. Also, this unique space I seem to occupy in your scumdar sure seems to provide you the opportunity to repeatedly publicly smear me, yet avoid accountability because you just always think I'm scummy. If everyone will just do me a favor and constantly remind themselves of how I jam NAF's scumdar as you read and re-read his suspicions of me as the game continues, it would be greatly appreciated. Somehow, I doubt that's going to be happening. Imho, cross-game posts like this walk a very fine line. You never know how such statements might influence players still alive in that game who happen to be playing in (or just reading) this one.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 19:31:37 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 31, 2008 19:31:37 GMT -5
No, please be as specific as possible when talking about scum in the other game. Names would be fine. Cookies is right though, I do try to guess the meaning of your statements, and you probably don't want me to do that.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 21:59:36 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 31, 2008 21:59:36 GMT -5
A voice booms from the heavens:
"You guys probably speak in jest, but the Mandate would like to remind everyone that discussing other, ongoing games is Very Bad Form. You wouldn't like people from the Peanut Gallery spoiling this game for you, so don't spoil it for other people, especially since a lot of you are playing both and being the masochists that you are you want to solve the puzzle yourselves.
Of course, if somebody wants to be a moron and post to the wrong board, that's their perogative."
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Feb 1, 2008 0:35:17 GMT -5
Okay, I have to get up early tomorrow morning to dig my car out of the snow, so I'm heading to bed. I leave you with short comments on 2 players, long comments on one player, and a vote. I'll be back tomorrow to vote for the Vote Leader after Artificial Deadline time hits. Peasant Smurf: He’s got only 10 posts (including his confirm), and almost half of them are apologies for absences/not posting. I’m fervently anti-Lynch-Lurkers, but I’d like to see some more activity. I’d comment more on what he’s said, but I feel like he hasn’t said anything that rates being commented on. piratepete: This is another player that I’d like to see more posts from, especially would like to see some details as to his reasoning when he votes, beyond (paraphrase alert) ‘so-and-so analyzed this person’. Koldanar: In addition to the “Since more are on roosh than NAF at this point” vote, in a post in which he never said why he was suspicious of Roosh & NAF in the first place, aside from “talking alot” Promises info and doesn’t deliver: #76: “(Being new, I feel I need a little more time / discussion to start to feel out scum-ness; frankly I'm wowed at some of the analysis you guys are already doing)” #172: “Sorry I'm being so quiet and lurking, I'm just trying to observe right now, and begin making cases with the time I have on the weekend.” Voted for piratepete because pete “jumped on my bandwagon far to quickly to seem anything less than scummy ... PiratePete. I hate switching up so quickly but that boy jumped right on my bandwagon (girl? with a name like pete...I hope not ) with no justification beyond "Oh hey, everyone thinks you're acting scummy so like, I'm voting for you!", and no response to my suspicion.” But when called on it, says: “It's not just the bandwagon; I need to go back and see what he's said (if anything) in his postings since he started.” If it wasn’t just the bandwagon, why didn’t you give your other reasons in the voting post, or at the very least, right here where you say it’s not just the bandwagon? It sounds like you’re saying you need to go back and find these additional reasons. If it was just the bandwagon, just say so. It may not look good, but this fiddling around looks worse. Vote koldanar.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Feb 1, 2008 1:07:24 GMT -5
Hello all, I'm back. *warning- this post may contain sarcasm and snarkiness. It's late, I finished my exam, and I'm in that "smart brain filter" isn't quite working mental state. So i don't really mean to be rude, I'm just in the state where I felt the lines were hilarious to myself when I first heard them, but am now too lazy to go back and edit them out. So if it's not funny, yeah, sorry. But it's not meant to be rude, and I'm just being silly .* I'm VERY anti-No lynching. VERY VERY ANTI-No Lynching. I feel it'd be a waste then of my efforts, and the time i've spent so far in the Game. Where was the No-Lynching sentiment while I was being strung up? Everyone was fine voting for Koldanar or Me, but suddenly I'm gone off the list, and No Lynching gets to be an option? Not cool, dudes, not cool. Suddenly when I'm gone from the lynch order, there's been NO OTHER dialog happening and NO other evidence with which you feel okay with lynching someone? Really- you want the scum to make it easier for you by removing 3 townies by tomorrow? Wishy-Washy lynches are not cool, but blood on the people's hands is blood. And that's evidence, even if it's on Town or on Scum hands. Blood is blood and even if we lynch a townie we can look at the people who voted for him and the people who didn't. Versus just nearly lynching a potential scum and suddenly NOT lynching him, and then having to go through this all over again. And if he's Town, then you've basically created the perfect Scumbait, every day people will bring up the idea that he's scummy and we'll just distract ourselves until we finally have to lynch the dumb bastard. I say we lynch and we lynch hard. Just because you can get away with a no lynch during the game, and view it as a useful tool, doesn't mean you should waste it on Day 1 of all days. We could have worse Days than this one, and I certainly would rather have a no lynch then using it up right now and giving the scum a free chance to dictate the pace of the game. We need HARD evidence up on the boards, and a lynch is the best way to do it. I am NOT an optimist. The whole idea of at night maybe scum will hit scum... I doubt it'll happen much. And I feel that it's more likely because the loss of a Townie almost ALWAYS will occur a night- Paranoid yes, but I'd rather be safe and cynical. In this case we could possibly lose 3 of them. Or 3 power roles. If that happens, then we wake up and we're stuck playing a game of mafia with 17 people, and 6 scum. How is that any better than a game of 20 and 6 scum if you have no voting patterns to really go off of? You don't know which votes are true votes, which ones are wishy-washy votes, and which are under the radar votes. I also feel that then my entire time spent trying to help out would be a waste. Because lets face it. Scum know at least ONE townie for sure in this game. And i have a feeling that guy is NOT going to survive the night. So already that's gonna be a waste for the Townies, as they KNOW 1 scum group will not be hitting another scum group. Though i'd like to make a plea to the scum groups.... They should keep that guy alive whoever he may be. Cuz that guy's not gonna hurt you.. Cuz he can't do anything vs. two scum groups. So those two shouldn't mess with him, cuz all he can do is basically hinder your opponents. That's a GREAT reason to keep him alive. Of course if you're in the group that feels you would be hindered by a player. Then sure, go ahead and try to take him out. But the other two then certainly SHOULD NOT try to kill that guy. But I digress. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` I would just like to say I dislike Posts 291, and 294 (Made by Story, Pleo in that order). Story- your points are interesting, but not as worrisome, and easy to answer (where you wonder about Role claims for others). I am who i am, and its best not to worry about who i am. As for others who may wish to claim but are afraid (since you mentioned this story), I've got an interesting idea that i was gonna toss around for another time. However, since I don't see myself as being around the game for a long time, I don't mind 'splaing it now: So spoke Wang Chung now: I think I may or may not have got many Brothers, Story. I occasionally receive post cards from various other people around the lands. If someday they come to visit, that'd be nice to hear from them. And interestingly enough, they're all named Wang Chung- I think. I really have a terrible memory and I have no idea. But I think that's what they sign the post cards. Another theory is maybe I'm suffering from multiple personalities, and they're just another facet of my OWN self. Who knows. The possibilities are endless. But should another Wang Chung (or two or thee) appear in this town, or maybe not, who knows? It would be best to listen to them and whatever interesting hobbies they may or may not have. Perhaps if I die, someone might suddenly discover that they in fact are the reincarnated version of myself and gleefully I may reappear, but the key is, if I do come back, I'll have a DIFFERENT Hobby or personality. But still, t'would be best not to worry about such visitors until they arrive. However, it could certainly be a possible outlet. However, that said: The best thing for others though to do, if they want to discover their inner Wang-Chungs, and see if they've got a little Wang in them, is to talk to the kindly sagacious G[m]ods above. Perhaps they should meditate on their own time, and seek to ask the Gods their own questions privately. And maybe... just maybe if you ask the Gods for a set of Guidelines and rules (or just ask if they have a certain list lying around) on how to behave properly in life, you'll slowly be able to unlock the keys to releasing your inner Wang. Good luck to those blessed few that seek such a path of enlightenment. To the rest of you though, Knock it off! Don't worry your petty little minds over the small stuff, and let those who need to know, know. He helps those who help themselves, so that's the best advice I can give you on that matter. (That and really confusing contradicting texts is always useful- for the record I didn't claim to be a peasant. I claimed to be a Pheasant- a tasty game bird. Just an FYI for those keeping track, but then again, I didn't claim anything. Or DID I? . I just really REALLY hate footwear, like nobody else's business). But again. It's a personal journey, so unless you're making it on your own, don't worry about it. And if YOU ARE making it on your own, now you know a way to enlightenment, and you don't need to worry about other's and their stations in life. Only scum and non-scum. 'Nuff Said! Based on a detailed conversation I've had with Death ( story, remember how I asked for detailed clarification in the Bladerunner game?), if Roosh has a pro-Town power role he has either violated the no-revelation rule, or possibly the no-coded-messages rule. I can't say more without violating the no-quoting-the-mod rule. (This kind of legalism is why I had no posting restrictions in my game--let players live or die based on what they say, rather than fearing the minutiae of the rules.) Aw. How cute. Hiding behind the your Mod's aprons. Maybe if you complain enough, the Moddy will come and kiss your boo-boos and make it all go away. But i can't really say any more without violating the-I-like-excessive-usage-of-hyphen's Rule. But Yeah. I've done some soul seeking on my own too, buddy. Talked to Death, then talked to Life, then that dude who hangs out by the 7-11, God. At that point I realized I was just talking to myself, and the horse was beaten and dead like 4 paragraphs back. My spiritual enlightenment though is just peachy. So if it really worries your future enlightenment, you wouldn't be ASKING those sorts of questions to begin with- you'd be dealing with your own problems personally. But the fact that you're trying to hint that maybe someone should get punished by the Gods above, is most uncool. But again nice try, and I say that only because I have no idea what I just said there because none of it applies to me because I have nothing to hide, nor am i implying i have anything to hide, I'm an open book and if you'd like to learn more just go read my role claim for information. :Insert pheasant noises here: I personally am a firm believer in winning by any means necessary (just like NAF early boasted in his Townie post), but that doesn't mean I'm stupid and blundering around without any clue of what's going on. And I'm not a fan of just Losing because of a silly technicality. So don't worry your head any more about such questions, and leave them be. And have a nice Day. I missed you while I was gone.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Feb 1, 2008 1:28:51 GMT -5
Smurf; your posts read pretty suspiciously of waffling and spotlight avoidance to me. I was actually starting to be convinced that Roosh was scum, before his "don't know what to call it" post - I'm not sure that satisfied me completley, so I will be keeping an eye on him. "I almost thought he was scum, but now I don't, but I'm not completely sure, so don't hold me responsible for any particular position on the subject, OK?" Hmm, I'm seeing that Roosh is not the only one twisting peoples posts? At what point in my quoted bit of text did I say "but now I don't"? In one of my earlier posts I had said I didn't think Roosh was scum, so after catching up on a few pages and reading peoples arguments against him, I was starting to buy into the idea Roosh was scum, and further that I wasn't completley convinced by his "role claim". How is that saying I don't find him scummy now? In fact I'm saying the complete opposite, i.e. I'm not convinced by the role claim and will be keeping an eye on him. That is not taking a stand? Hmm? "Also, I want to mention this thing that someone did that I thought might be scummy, but it's not, at least I don't think so, but I'll bring it up right now just to remind you all that some people think it's scummy. But I don't. So if piratepete gets lynched and is town, remember I said he wasn't scummy. But if he gets lynched and is scum, remember I pointed this out." Once again nice selective understanding of my post may I quote Pete had garnered a few votes on the basis of the magic bag, and claiming newbie status. Based upon my own Mafia experiences I know first hand dropping the "newb" word can unfairly get you in the spotlight. I think my post - see the quote just above! Is me saying to all and sundry I don't think either of these two things says Pete is scum. I think it says it pretty unequivocally, don't you? I left a little tag on the end because I'm not saying Pete is definitely not scum, I have no idea, he may well be, but I'm saying that these two data points don't make him scum. "Ah, but Pleonast has expressed an unpopular opinion that a lot of people will oppose in knee-jerk fashion, so I'll oppose it too, but I won't give any reasons why, and I won't explain why Pleonast's vote for a no-lynch, which draws a considerable amount of attention to him and has no chance of succeeding because people oppose a no-lynch on principle even when it's a useful idea, makes any kind of sense for a scum trying to hide from attention. I'll just throw out this vote here, because Pleo's not going to get lynched and even if he does, I'm safely ensconced in the opinion of the majority here." This is the worst of your points here Story. Yes a lot of people will oppose the no-lynch, there is a solid history of anyone so much as suggesting a no-lynch getting a fairly rough going over, but suddenly I'm somehow the one who is suspicious for daring to vote for someone who not only suggests it, but actively votes for a no lynch? Sheesh how did you arrive at that? If you need me to I'll go back to Asylum Lane, (my first ever game) and show you the flak I copped for just asking naively why a no lynch was so bad. In the words of Bart it seems I'm damned if you do and damned if I don't in your eyes. I'm comfortable with my vote and the reason for it.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 1, 2008 1:31:36 GMT -5
nesta, the Factions are each trying to kill 18/20 of the players. ToDay, when all the Factions have two players, targeting another Faction is as useful as targeting a Villager*. This won't be true once a Faction player has been killed, since targeting a singleton Faction results in a block. Fair point, but you say Today rather than Tonight. Perhaps I'm making a bad assumption, but as scum in the Conspiracy game (with factions of 3 instead of 2) at least my faction's basic goals were to lynch the other scum during the day and hurt the town at night (our faction didn't have a night-kill, but blocking powers instead). In that game the scum certainly demonstrated that they would rather have any scum faction win over the town even if it wasn't their own. I've been assuming that the scum factions in this game will probably play the same way. Perhaps they won't since the factions are smaller, but I wouldn't count on it. Of course, now thinking back on that game, it is a good example of inadvertent scum cross-kills (*grumble*), so maybe they won't be as likely to avoid them as I fear. As for looking at information gained voting, don't forget that the Factions have little more information than Peasants: only the identity of their Faction-mate. We're not going to find accidental displays of extra information that we would normally use to catch scum. My point about lynching on Day 1 wasn't that we could look for perfect information from the scum, but rather that we can use the reasoning behind the votes themselves. Where they place their vote doesn't really matter, since my assumption has been that they will try to lynch the other factions just like anyone else, but they will do so in a way that is inconsistent with real townies because they have a different agenda. I feel that a no-lynch loses us this extra information. As I consider who to vote for, I have to weigh the costs/benefits of lynching versus the costs/benefits of lynching no one. I'm not confident enough in anyone's scumminess at this moment to vote to lynch. So I vote to lynch no one. In my opinion, lynching no one is a useful option toDay. Fair enough. If I didn't feel that we have a decent chance of lynching scum Today I would agree with you. In general I'm opposed to no-lynches, but I am open to them in some circumstances, the primary of which is when I feel that all the likely lynch candidates are town and there is little chance of turning that around. I don't feel that way right now, and even though I fully acknowledge that Day 1 is often a mis-lynch, right now I feel that we have a number of likely scum on the block and the chance to lynch scum, plus the information gained even if we don't, is worth the risk.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Feb 1, 2008 3:22:04 GMT -5
Man... that last post by me was a rambling incoherent mess. But i think there was a very small point in there somewhere. But damn, if ever i wish i coulda edited, i guess it'd be that post.
I wish i could blame it on something else, but I was stone cold sober when writing it. Just mentally exhausted. Man. I'm not funny when I'm tired. And with that. Bed.
-_- "zzzzzz"
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 1, 2008 3:45:40 GMT -5
Time is growing short, so I've been looking back over the posts of those I feel are most scummy right now. In some particular order these are: piratepete/Denouement, koldanar, Peasant Smurf, and diggitcamara. It's not much of a coincidence that my top three also happen to be the vote leaders at this point. After looking back through their posts I think they are the vote leaders for good reason. I'll start with diggit, because I wish I had called him out a while ago but I was waiting for Smurf to respond. If there's one player who is completely in the background right now it's diggit. If it was back midway through Today I would probably put my vote on him to see what his reaction was, but it's too late for that. For now I want to bring his name up to prod him into being more active. His biggest contribution has been a vote for koldanar in post 1.191 (2nd vote for him), but it was a very weak vote simply saying that kol hadn't been around. He later follows up in post 1.240 saying that while kol's presence was more substantial the way kol voted and justified his vote was suspicious. I don't think diggit has posted since then. He's an experienced player and I would have expected more from him Today. Next up is Smurf. I still find his early preemptive non-votes scummy. I'm also a little concerned that after I had given up on prodding him to take a stance he said he was back and would have something soon, but so far he hasn't. I'm tempted to re-vote him because so far he hasn't given us anything to work with other than a number of non-committal posts and a couple of defense posts. That's not enough for me to get behind his lynch right now, though, but Tomorrow will be a different story if he doesn't step up. That brings us to piratepete and koldanar. I'm usually hesitant to vote for newbies on Day 1, but I also dislike the "I'm a newbie" defense, and both of them (and both of pete's incarnations) have used it. I also think that newbie scum are more likely to make mistakes, and I see possible slips in both of their posts. For kol, I didn't like this (1.18): Am I correct in assuming that the 3 factions can't communicate between? So what we have here then is three 2-person factions working against us as well as each other, so they can't totally run the vote you're proposing right? He asks if the different factions can communicate. This could be an innocent question, but things like this trip my scumdar as possible "I can't be scum because I don't know anything about them" meta-gaming. Another little thing that caught my eye is that in 1.172 his says: The thing that most excites me is I have 3 separate groups of scum to identify, rather than the large one. As someone mentioned, they'll also be scum searching, so instead of looking back at other games I've lurked on, I need to find my own way to see how these groups would act here. [underline mine] And in post 1.307 he says: I'm having a hell of a time w/out at least a few lynches having already happened. (I never seem to pay attention to mafia games till a few days in) I felt at that point I was lurking too much, and I needed to come out of my shell and try to participate. Voting right off the getgo? Bad move. [underline mine] And yet in post 1.204 he says: You're right I haven't read the other older games, except for the one currently happening at the dope. Day One kind of has me for a loss; I'm not quite sure what to do or think...it gets a little easier as days go on and theres more than just words, but actions as well. Right now all i have is how people talked (which I haven't taken notes on, I've got to learn to do that) and gut feelings. I'm going with the gut right now. [again, underline mine] Now this is a very small thing, but he has referred to following multiple games, but in post 1.204 he claims that he hasn't followed any of the other games except the one currently happening on the SDMB. Perhaps there's an innocent explanation, but combined with the general tone of those quotes, these seem very scummy to me. And that brings me to piratepete, formerly Denouement. The early Denouement posts struck me as slightly scummy. He got called out for saying he had experience and had some scum tells he was looking for, but yet claimed he was a newbie. He then fell silent, and was then subbed out. I'm trying to suppress meta-gaming this, but it is a small point against him / Pete. The biggest problem I have with pete is the bandwagon hopping. First he jumps on Smurf (1.176) after I call Smurf out for his low participation. He doesn't seem to look any further than my case against Smurf and his lack of defense. He later unvotes Smurf and votes Koldanar citing drainbead's and Roosh's analysis (1.213). I find this bandwagon hopping opportunistic, especially since he is just piggy-backing on others' cases rather than seeming to examine them closely. In post 1.180 he says to Smurf: I, for my part, appreciate those remarks in your defence, and recognise that there's not much dirt on you. However, I wanted to get a vote on the table (rather contrary to your strategy), and you had the most information against you so far. The Day is long, and the ways of mafia are subtle, but there's no insta-lynch conditions I can see on the immediate horizon, so there my vote stays pending further thought. [underline mine] He says there wasn't much dirt on Smurf, but that Smurf had the most information against him? He also said that he wanted to get a vote on the table, which strikes me as a somewhat scummy sentiment. Vote piratepeteBut it's a very close thing between him and koldanar. I wouldn't be surprised if they are both scum, so I could vote to lynch either in good conscience.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 1, 2008 7:40:04 GMT -5
Ok, I'm unlikely to be around for the rest of the Day so there may only be a couple more posts from me.
However, I am happy with my vote for piratepete for the reasons I have outlined.
Onto other things...
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Feb 1, 2008 7:58:50 GMT -5
Next up is Smurf. I still find his early preemptive non-votes scummy. I'm also a little concerned that after I had given up on prodding him to take a stance he said he was back and would have something soon, but so far he hasn't. Huh? Since coming back on yesterday I've made a few posts, which was needed as a couple people had dog piled on me. In fact a post I made was picked apart by Story!! What exactly is it I haven't done yet?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 1, 2008 8:04:49 GMT -5
storyteller:
A fresh viewpoint on our argument:
You stated that from your experience, people using the given statement or variation against you were scum.
This to me, implies you think I am scum.
However, I have a piece of information, ie. my role, which disproves your theory and renders your observations from previous experiences invalid.
The problem is that what you consider scummy behaviour, I do not and in my, albeit limited, experience is a town behaviour and not used by scum.
And I am still curious about the fact that EVERY time previously this has been bought up with you, it has been done by a scum. That seems so unlikely as, at least to me, to be false.
Maybe, it is true to this point. But it certainly will not be after this game. I guess this one is only going to be resolved after my demise.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 1, 2008 8:24:23 GMT -5
Now, obviously, some of that is likely townies looking for a hook. But I’m going to work under the hypothesis that at least one of the Koldanar voters is scum. This is a temporary hypothesis, active for the purposes of this analysis only, but I think it’s a not-unreasonable supposition. Someone said that in this game, we’re really looking for a bunch of serial killers, and I think that’s exactly right, and the fundamental way in which this game differs from others. I truly believe that the scum in this game will support and protect their respective partners only to a very small degree; for each individual scum player, this is an individual game, and the optimal strategy to use is an “anyone but me” strategy. Personal arguments aside, I think you are wrong on this. I think the scum are, at least for the first few days going to be very protective of their partners, purely because at this stage, to go one down at the start is a major handicap to the likelihood of them winning. Once the town has been thinned out, then I think we will see SK play from the scum, but at the moment, I think they will have to protect their partners as mush as possible. This emphatically does not mean lurking, per se; pure lurkers are in danger of being mod-killed. Plus, since at the outset of the game, any given scum is at risk of being killed by any of three Night killers who do not know his/her identity, lurking is a good way of drawing attention from Night killers (Serial Killers have, historically, targeted lurkers or relative lurkers). So what a scum player needs to do in this game is participate enough to be noticed, but not controversially enough to be an early lynch target. This I agree on, they cannot afford to look like easy targets for other scum factions. Loud talking always gets you more attention, so I think the scum are less likely to be amongst them, but I would not put it past one or two of them. However, given the size of the scum factions, I do not think we can say that they will target lurkers more often than not. I think they will target the players whose deaths will provide optimum heat for people other than their team mates. Of course, with three groups, this could lead to some interesting death patterns. A few games ago, someone proposed a simple method for looking at the game: ask, what do the scum want us to do?. In this game, each individual scum wants us to do one thing and one thing only - lynch anyone but him/her. This requires an alternate target, of course. But it’s not enough. Thing is, early on, Roosh was getting a lot of votes. From the standpoint of Scum X, this is good, because a vote for Roosh is NOT a vote for Scum X. But it’s still not good enough. Because if everyone is concentrating on Roosh, then there’s the danger that, at the eleventh hour, Roosh will role claim or someone will get nervous about the bandwagon that’s developing. This leads to a last minute, chaotic rearrangement of votes, and this is the worst thing that can happen to Scum X, because in the chaos, he or she might wind up at the top of the list. So if you’re Scum X, you need a second target, so that if the bandwagon on Roosh dissipates, there’s a ready-made alternative candidate to keep the heat off of you. That’s Koldanar. So that’s why I believe that the rapid and largely-unmotivated buildup of votes on him was at least partly scum-driven. Specifics to follow under separate cover. Unfortunately, I think you are overdoing this. It would be a very clever strategy if the scum could pull it off, but the biggest problem for them is that it would require the scum pair to work in concert to vote for two seperate people and push them to the top and also gain traction from the other players in the town to go along with this. If there were six scum as a group against the village I would agree. But to ask three groups of two to pull this off is a little unlikely. However, I look forward to your reasoning behind this buildup and its conclusions as to which one the six voting for Koldenar is most likely to be scum.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 1, 2008 8:54:26 GMT -5
I have to do this fast; I have until 11:00AM, and then I have no fewer than five consecutive one hour meetings to attend. I tried telling them about Mafia, but they looked at me funny. So quick responses to Cat, and then off to finish my analysis. storyteller:A fresh viewpoint on our argument: You stated that from your experience, people using the given statement or variation against you were scum. This to me, implies you think I am scum. However, I have a piece of information, ie. my role, which disproves your theory and renders your observations from previous experiences invalid. OK. I obviously have no way of knowing this for myself, though, so I can only rely on my own observations and ideas. If you turn out to be non-scum, that will be a useful data point for future games, but it doesn't help me in this one. Well, it's not like it's been done a hundred thousand times. The incidence of someone employing this tactic has been low. My sample size is admittedly small, which is why I framed my initial statement carefully and dislike your rewording of it: in my limited experience, X = Y, which is a point of interest. But given the small sample size, it's obviously not probitive, which is one reason I'm not voting for you right now.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 1, 2008 9:00:50 GMT -5
Personal arguments aside, I think you are wrong on this. I think the scum are, at least for the first few days going to be very protective of their partners, purely because at this stage, to go one down at the start is a major handicap to the likelihood of them winning. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here, then. I think that given the possibility of cross-kills, the existence of the Vig, and the likelihood that we, as a town, will get a few lynches right, it is exceedingly unlikely that both members of any single scum pair are going to survive to the endgame. Given that, it is essential that each member of a scum pair position him- or herself to survive after the death of his or her partner, and that means playing from the start as if they aren't partners at all. No reason we have to agree on this, though. We can't say it, but we can't rule it out. We don't know what they will do. But neither do they. Small faction killers have historically targeted lurkers, so scum looking to avoid getting crosskilled might feel compelled to avoid excessive lurking just to reduce the danger. I disagree. It's funny - I think our disagreements on this point are reflective of our very different approaches to being scum in the games where we've been scum. The above strategy - trying to kill people in an effort to direct heat at people other than the scum - was one I assiduously avoided using in my scum game. I disagree. It takes very little effort to generate one alternative target; that will happen naturally. Look, let me get to actually talking about koldanar now, and maybe I can clarify my point thusly.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 1, 2008 9:43:04 GMT -5
All right, without further ado: The Tale of the Incredible Expanding Vote Count,” OR, “How Koldanar Was Placed on the Block”
But first: absolutely nothing in this analysis has anything whatsoever, really, to do with whether or not koldanar is or is not scum. He might be or he might not be. Because the other scum factions don’t know if he is or isn’t any better than the townies do, it really doesn’t matter for these purposes. The question is, whatever koldanar is, how did the vote push against him develop? Was there an artificial component to it? Let’s see.
As of the vote count on Page 6 (Post #157), there were no votes on koldanar. Smurf and Santo were the only players with more than 1 vote other than Roosh, the leading target. If my hypothesis from yesterday is correct, at this point, an individual scum player benefits most from a second main target, in case the votes for Roosh evaporate, to keep things from descending into chaos.
By post #181, piratepete has added onto the Smurf wagon, making Smurf a fairly viable second candidate with three votes. Interesting, but not particularly telling. piratepete doesn’t offer any particular reason for swelling the Smurf wagon to three (!), apart from piggybacking nesta’s earlier analysis.
At #188, Diomedes votes koldanar (1). His reasoning is a variation on “lynch-the-lurker,” which in this context I don’t agree with, per se, but I don’t think it’s especially scummy.*
At #191, diggit votes koldanar, and says:
In this particular case - and working with my own admittedly falliable hypothesis - the inclusion of the defense of Roosh makes this vote seem slightly less scummy. Why bother trying to build a second, subsidiary bandwagon while defusing the original, primary bandwagon? Unless diggit and Roosh are scum together - and since I am provisionally assuming Roosh is not scum at all, they’re not - it makes no sense.
At #195, Roosh votes koldanar. Once again, I’m assuming Roosh is non-scum until proven otherwise, so no real analysis of this vote is requried.
At #197, koldanar gets a fourth vote, this one from drainbead. The bulk of her argument follows:
Frankly, this is all very reasonable. Even though I’m pretty sure drainbead has to be a scum role-blocker in every game just by rule, I can’t fault her reasoning or her vote here.
At this point, the primary targets are: Roosh (5), koldanar (4), and Smurf (3). Interestingly enough, although I started this thing looking for a scum-directed koldanar wagon, I’m not seeing any of the first four votes as particularly scummy. Let’s see what happens next.
Now, at #213, piratepete bails off the Smurf wagon to hitch a ride on the koldanar wagon. This pulls koldanar well ahead of Smurf and ties him with Roosh. pete’s only reasoning is more piggybacking - this time onto drainbead and Roosh.
And here’s where I’m going to stop, and place my vote. piratepete piggybacks onto a bandwagon, based only on the reasoning of others. It is a bandwagon that is already fairly advanced, so pete had to know that his vote would be important.
And perhaps most of all: the votes for koldanar - and, thus, by extension, pete’s vote, are based on the proposition that, as pete himself says at #213, “Neither Smurf nor koldanar seem to have said aaall that much of late, but what koldanar's said has only made it worse.” But of course, piratepete himself hasn’t said “aaall that much” either, in the final analysis, so the fact that he’s willing to jump onto the business end of a bandwagon based, essentially, on the fact that another player is doing the same thing seems highly suspicious to me.
unvote Peasant Smurf vote piratepete
This is going to be my last post of the (real-life) day, unfortunately. For the record, in case I come back and it’s somehow Night, I am still highly suspicious of:
piratepete
Somewhat suspicious of:
Peasant Smurf Hal Briston hockey monkey (But I’m always suspicious of her)
A little suspicious of:
CatinaSuit
And have no meaningful reads on anyone else.
----------------------------
* - I didn’t want to include this in the main body of the post, which is long enough as it is, but I think there’s something to be said for leaving the big talkers alive in the absence of very strong evidence. I know that, as a big talker, this is a self-serving opinion, but in this particular game, since the scum are also scum-hunting during the Day, they can be useful tools for us if they provide a lot of analysis. Towns have gotten hosed in the past few games by killing all their big talkers early, such that in the mid- to endgame, the Days slow way down and less discussion occurs. I’m not saying this should be a primary driver of our collective decisions - just that it’s something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 11:03:20 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 1, 2008 11:03:20 GMT -5
Well I agree with the result of your analysis, storyteller This is likely to be my last post for the Day. I don't have much read on too many other people, and I am not totally convinced about koldanar and Peasant Smurf either way, but they are definitely worth looking at again in Day 2. Something about storyteller is bugging me, but I am wondering if it is coming from disagreement of strategy and gameplay than anything else. If piratepete does turn out to be scum, as I hope he does, then I would also consider looking at Hal Briston. And that's all folks.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 11:53:45 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 1, 2008 11:53:45 GMT -5
piratepete is actually second on my scum list--in part due to how Tragic was acting before he took over (as my initial vote for Tragic showed), and then storyteller had a very good analysis of why pete really hasn't done much to alleviate my initial suspicion. I'd be glad to switch to piratepete if need be.
That having been said, we're getting to crunch time here, and I'm not a fan of a no-lynch--we need the accountability of votes, especially given how hard it's going to be to distinguish scum from non-scum in this game.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 12:49:59 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Feb 1, 2008 12:49:59 GMT -5
I won't be on much this weekend, and I've spent my Mafia-thinking time-budget on the SDMB game (I'm not expecting to survive much longer ;D ). I still believe a no lynch is a viable option for Day 1. Unfortunately, too many players have a knee-jerk reaction to that, based on how previous rule sets. That reaction does not serve us well here. I'm half tempted to keep pushing the idea, but that's likely to result in a few scum provoking us into a distraction (cite: the Bladerunner game). I'll cut that short by conceding and voting for someone I find mildly suspicious: vote (Peasant Smurf)Mostly for the way he jumped on me for voting no lynch. I expect Villagers to get in fights in the early games, especially over strategy and tactics. Roosh's complaint against not lynching strikes me as this sort of thing. Smurf's quick vote, though, seems to me to be very suspicious. So, there you go, I won't vote no-lynch, I'll OMGUS vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 13:34:33 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 1, 2008 13:34:33 GMT -5
I am duely embarrased about makeing posts regarding the game I am running on the dope.
It won't happen again.
I am going to
vote smurf
for the reasons I listed earlier.
And now I will shut up until the the meds have fishinsed working through my system. Apperantly I can't trust myself while I am doped up and sick.
Sorry again.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 13:50:17 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 1, 2008 13:50:17 GMT -5
Considering our 24-hour advance plan ends at the end of today and a lot of people are saying they've made their last posts for toDay, I'm hoping there will be enough people on tomorrow during the weekend to switch their votes so we can get a majority. And here’s where I’m going to stop, and place my vote. piratepete piggybacks onto a bandwagon, based only on the reasoning of others. It is a bandwagon that is already fairly advanced, so pete had to know that his vote would be important. And perhaps most of all: the votes for koldanar - and, thus, by extension, pete’s vote, are based on the proposition that, as pete himself says at #213, “Neither Smurf nor koldanar seem to have said aaall that much of late, but what koldanar's said has only made it worse.” But of course, piratepete himself hasn’t said “aaall that much” either, in the final analysis, so the fact that he’s willing to jump onto the business end of a bandwagon based, essentially, on the fact that another player is doing the same thing seems highly suspicious to me. It really strikes me as odd that both koldanar and pete have used a certain reasoning against the other as votes, yet with their actions have made the same mistakes they used in their reasoning for voting.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 14:15:59 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Feb 1, 2008 14:15:59 GMT -5
A voice booms from the heavens:
"Remember, folks, this isn't the United States. You all only have one vote each. If you do want to change votes, you need to unvote first so that the Mandate can properly record your murderous intentions towards whomever, including that mysterious 'No Lynch' fellow who has one ballot."
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 14:19:59 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Feb 1, 2008 14:19:59 GMT -5
Hmm, I suddenly feel an odd compulsion: unvote (No Lynch) vote (Peasant Smurf)
There, much better.
|
|
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 15:48:03 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Feb 1, 2008 15:48:03 GMT -5
Rules question: What happens if both members of a faction are targeted on the same Night?
One will live. One will die.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 16:58:17 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 1, 2008 16:58:17 GMT -5
I'm struggling here. I spent some of last night rereading the whole Day. I was so tired towards the end that most of the things I was looking at proved to be evansecent, and my notes are fragmentary and garbled. My focus was on the votes for Koldanar, the Cat / Story argument and Piratepete. I think I'll break the discussion up into separate posts because I don't want to draft a four page screed. Koldanar first. I have a somewhat different view of Koldanar's vote for Roosh than many others. If you read D1.192 you'll see that he narrowed down his suspects to two (on grounds that he later accepted was in error) and picked Roosh over NAF because Roosh had more votes. This is not an uncommon attitude, and lacking any reason to vote one over the other is quite reasonable. But Roosh's reaction has spun it to something different in everyone's eyes. He accused Koldanar of voting for him because he has more votes against him. At least two of the subsequent votes cite Roosh's spin on Koldanar's vote as a reason to vote Koldanar. ... why are we letting Roosh off again? 1The first two votes (which were made before Koldanar's vote for Roosh) look like pressure votes to me. I'm unfond of pressure votes as a tactic, so do Diomedes and DiggitCamara have any better justification for their votes? As things currently stand, Koldanar is the lead candidate and will be lynched, unless there is a vote shift. Four of these votes look dodgy to me, and that doesn't discuss Piratepete's vote. His play can be explained by new-to-the-game syndrome, particularly his poor justification for homing in on on Roosh and NAF. My conclusion : I want to give him some more rope and see whether he fashions a noose for his own neck. 1Rhetorical question.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 17:08:19 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Feb 1, 2008 17:08:19 GMT -5
Rules question: What happens if both members of a faction are targeted on the same Night? One will live. One will die. Clarification by the other Mandate:
This obviously only applies to attacks by other factions. Vigilante kills will still go through unless stopped by the Super Doctor's protection.
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 19:57:24 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Feb 1, 2008 19:57:24 GMT -5
It really strikes me as odd that both koldanar and pete have used a certain reasoning against the other as votes, yet with their actions have made the same mistakes they used in their reasoning for voting. But the important difference is I've come and admitted that was a bad reasoning choice; I still haven't heard anything from Pete at all about this. mhaye got the point across much better than I had until this point; it was a mistake, and someone pounced on it; others then followed that bandwagon. This will possibly be my last post through the end of the Day. If I can manage some time tomorrow I will try, but my GF likes keeping me busy on weekends (but she isn't well atm). To finish off I would like to say a few things. First, if everyone that jumped on someone with the most votes were scummy, how would anyone at all get lynched during a day? I made a rookie mistake, and it's in the past now. Take a look at me for my actions since; compare that to how a few others have voted then dissapeared / not said anything of worth.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Feb 1, 2008 20:10:45 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 1, 2008 20:10:45 GMT -5
The argument between CIAS and Storyteller. A potted summary : CIAS suggested Story was playing under his game (so to speak). Story remarked that whenever anyone has said that to him in a game, the person saying it "turned out to be Mafia." CIAS generalised this to "every time someone brings this up, they are scum" and suggested that was a pretty strong statement. On rereading I cannot decide whether CIAS actually meant to suggest it was generally true, and it's probably too late to get an answer in time to affect votes. Nevertheless, I'd like to know the answer (assuming CIAS lives through the Night). Storyteller's statement is worded as an observation, and I don't think CIAS's argument is that well grounded. However, one of Storyteller's arguments struck me as a little ingenuous. He said that his statement "was not intended to be predictive." (See post D1.318 for context.) If it wasn't intended to at least suggest Story now had grounds for thinking CIAS might hold a scum role, why say it at all? I may be reading too much into something at 1am, but it struck me as a little odd. At the end of all this, I find my suspicion of Storyteller rising, just a bit. He joins Hal Briston on my mildly suspect list. One to keep an eye on.
|
|