|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 17:43:35 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jan 22, 2008 17:43:35 GMT -5
Out of game note: I'll be on a short business trip Wednesday through Friday. I'll have internet access and should be able to keep up on reading, but won't have much time to post.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 18:28:43 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 22, 2008 18:28:43 GMT -5
Is it just me, or have only 13 of us posted since the game started? Where are the other guys?
|
|
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 22, 2008 18:32:09 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 22, 2008 18:32:09 GMT -5
More often than not, an Emperor of the Latter Han dynasty died young (due to reasons natural or otherwise), leaving a handful of children who were far too young to rule. Therefore the task of Stewardship fell to his mother and her relatives, who would take advantage by placing their own kin into places of high office. The young Emperor would then be raised by a small army's worth of royal servants--eunuchs, males whose reproductive organs were removed voluntary or otherwise to serve in the Palace and care for the Emperor and his many Concubines.
Once the Emperor became of age, he would conspire with these eunuchs to seize power from his in-laws. If he succeeded, the eunuchs held sway over the court; if he failed, he would be at the mercy of the in-laws.
The result of these power struggles was the breakdown of the centralized bureaucracy on almost every level, save for the few local governors who ruled at their own jurisprudence. Famine and plague ravaged the land, and many of the displaced farmers became bandits out of desperation. To a culture steeped in the concept of fate, the times seemed ripe for change. Top of the page vote count:
2 - hawkeyeop (Diomedes, NAF1138) 1 - kolandar (Rugger, Pygmy) 1 - Roosh (hawkeyeop)
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 18:55:34 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 22, 2008 18:55:34 GMT -5
Yay! The Day started!
I'm happy with the plan for the artificial deadline to ensure a majority lynch. Either everyone voting for the top vote getter or for the two top vote getters is OK with me.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 19:21:22 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jan 22, 2008 19:21:22 GMT -5
So, the Artificial Deadline will be Feb 1 at 11:59 PM?
Yes, I ask like it's been decided already, but I don't think it can hurt and if someone does notice and bring up a significant disadvantage to it, we're still playing normally until then, and in that case, we can just continue doing so.
That said: vote Santo Rugger for Tradition's sake.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 20:21:32 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 22, 2008 20:21:32 GMT -5
Vote NAF...for meta-gaming with another currently active game that happens to share a player with this game, as justification for a Day 1 vote, with only a handfull of posts to the game thread. Sure Day 1 votes are a tough nut to crack, but your case is far from compelling even allowing for that.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 21:55:20 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 22, 2008 21:55:20 GMT -5
When you say "throw over his or her powers" what exactly are you proposing story? Please clarify. Certainly. I am proposing that if and only if the Vig (Mao) is required, as opposed to permitted, to kill at Night, that the possessor of this role should claim immediately, deliberately giving up his or her killing powers - because those killing powers, again, if and only if killing is required, are better for the scum than for the town. Doing this would eliminate the Vig power, which is a benefit. It would also provide us with a confirmed townie, or a dead scum in no more than two Days if one is foolish enough to counterclaim. This is a fairly radical idea, and I don't imagine it will be terribly palatable for the Vig him- or herself, as it involves giving up a power before ever using it. I nonetheless believe it would be best for the town. For the final time, if the Vig power is optional - if the Vig can choose to no-kill on any given Night - then the above is invalid and should be ignored completely. I assume that the Vig can read this argument and judge its merits for him- or herself.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 22:09:28 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jan 22, 2008 22:09:28 GMT -5
I'm fairly sure that the Vig's power is optional, since the PM reads "each night you may submit the name of one player" (italics mine). Note that it's "may" and not "must".
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 22, 2008 23:42:14 GMT -5
Post by Tragic on Jan 22, 2008 23:42:14 GMT -5
Always the talkative bunch.. I was pleasntly surprised not to be completely overwhelmed with page after page of posts when I got home from classes today. And with that note I'm sure I just jinxed myself...
What I like about the counter to the proposed plan (aka the revised plan) is that it allows for a bit more debate. It also gives two sides of a story instead of a bandwagoning situation. I honestly don't see it causing more problems but we all know by now I'm not the most strategical of mind when it involves numbers *shudder*. It just seems like having two distinct targets will allow for a better in depth analysis, is all.
Also.. for what it's worth I've played in one other game (like the only other game I've really played in, lol) where there were 2 factions of Spies and it made for quite an event watching them go after each other and the Cits (vanilla). Three is going to be trickier to catch (I won't give away how we caught them last time because I'll be watching 'em carefully) but there are little things that can help the few vanilla types along the way <3
Those are my 2 cents for what they're worth.
Cheers, D.; still trying to come out of her shell
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 0:40:27 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jan 23, 2008 0:40:27 GMT -5
Is it just me, or have only 13 of us posted since the game started? Where are the other guys? Sorry about that, but I hadn't seen an actual starting date for this Day. So, I've been absent. I do agree with storyteller's plan (establish a 24h deadline to insure a lynch). But I think we should have a solid consensus behind it before we implement it as well. So, in lieu of the "Governor" vote, why don't we vote (right now) for or against that idea? I'll start: vote for storyteller's 24h deadline
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 0:42:01 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 23, 2008 0:42:01 GMT -5
While I liked story's voting plan in the Dossier game, let's not jump the gun here. How much does a no lynch actually hurt us? On Night One, scum have 1-(13/19)^3 = 68% of killing at least one scum. If we do not lynch, that's 1-(14/20)^3 = 66%. Not much different. I think there are some rare situations where a no-lynch is the best option, but I don't think right now is one of them. First, while it seems the odds of scum killing scum are high, you're assuming the scum kills will be evenly distributed as if they are random, and they aren't. The scum have the same information to avoid other scum as we do in looking for them. I think they'll have an even better chance at avoiding scum than we will of finding them based on the information available simply because they don't even have to pick out the scum to not kill them, they just have to decide on a "safe" target whom they feel is much more likely to be town than scum. Second, even assuming a random distribution, the odds of at least two townies being killed is high. We can't afford that type of attrition for long. Unless the Vig is very good we must lynch scum, and we must use the chances we get to do so. Third, our only way to catch scum is to gather information. Day 1 is critical for this. If we start thinking a no-lynch is a possibility on Day 1 we'll coast along into Day 2 without any real debate about who is scummy and who isn't, and we'll start Day 2 with much less real information than if we committed to lynching someone on Day 1. We can't just wait for the scum to kill each other for us because I don't think they'll accommodate us. Also, even if we mis-lynch on Day 1 this gives us information about those who did or didn't vote for them. I'm glad storyteller proposed an early deadline early enough for it to do us some good. I've been personally debating whether I like his "vote out the leader" or hawkeyeop's "run-off between the leaders" ideas better. I worry that we'll end up in a situation where the majority doesn't feel the vote leader at the early deadline is scummy enough to kill, so we'll end up with the same standoff we were hoping to avoid, so a second choice would give us a better chance of lynching someone that at least a good portion of the town thinks is scum. On the other hand storyteller made some good points about non-voters during the runoff leading to us not reaching a majority. I personally like having a choice at the end of the Day, and I'm not shy about switching my vote just to get a lynch and move on, but I think it's important enough that we lynch someone that I think treating the early deadline as a real deadline and lynching the person leading in votes at that time is better.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 1:06:51 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 23, 2008 1:06:51 GMT -5
Here's what I think. We should never lynch a claimed power role in the absence of a counterclaim. Conversely, any false claim should be counterclaimed (maybe not immediately, but eventually). This would result in a loss of powers, but in nailing scum, and given how ultimately weak the powers actually are, this is a very good trade. The scum can false-counterclaim a claim if they want, but all it will net them is the elimination of a player who is now vanilla, and cost them a life. Since each scum group is only two players, they won't be likely to toss away their lives so quickly. I think this is a very good point about the structure of this game. The power-roles lose their powers when they claim, but at the same time they are mostly confirmed unless there's a counter-claim. Since they are named roles if they claim and there is a counter-claim it's at worst a 50/50, and until the end-game this is a good trade (and many times even during the end-game.) Confirmed town are really powerful once the numbers have been whittled down, so if we can go into end-game with claimed or claim-able power-roles it will really help. Unless there is a counter-claim I don't see any reason to lynch someone who has claimed. If it's a false-claim it's as simple as the real holder of that role claiming and we can either lynch scum that Day or the next (or when the real role decides to claim.)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 1:44:12 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 23, 2008 1:44:12 GMT -5
I don't see when there would be a scenario where somebody with a power role would want to claim. The only viable scenario to me would be if one of the specialized Doctors comes out and claims when both members of the scum group he can defend against are dead (and thus he's really rendered vanilla anyway).
Of course, I'm already excluding claiming when you're on the chopping block as for some reason my mind just didn't register that as a possibility when I read the set-up. I just thought "Why would anybody claim with these rules? It's silly, nobody would want to give up their power!" But reading the above posts made me think, and I guess what we really should consider is whether we (as a whole) think it's more valuable to have no power roles and verifiable vanillas than the chance to stop kills during the Night.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 7:58:12 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 23, 2008 7:58:12 GMT -5
Well, my posting activity will be les than usual but my thoughts as follows.
Voting I like the modified voting plan to go with the top couple of suspects with a Day or so to go. It will also mean that everyone should look to get a vote in by this point.
Claims I see no reason to lynch people who have claimed unless counterclaimed. As this is an open game, we know all the roles, so no-one is going to be trying to bluff an unknown power role. If two people claim a role, one of them will be scum. Claims are not worthless because they provide us with known townies whether they have power or not.
Game I think this game is going to be quick, with probably 3-4 night kills per night, I doubt it will last longer than 6-7 Days. I also expect some overnight scum casualties, which is a good thing for the town. As for the Vigilante, it has always been only kill if you are pretty sure, but I am not going to put any limits on it. They are playing for the town just as much as the rest of the town is and so on their head be the consequence of their actions.
No-Lynch I would prefer not to no-lynch and hopefully we can come to a consensus as the town.
Now to wait and see who is doing what before placing a vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 9:48:01 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 23, 2008 9:48:01 GMT -5
[quote author=naf1138 board=rottk thread=1201030708 post=1201039666 Sure there is. But I can't fully explain what it is without breaking the game you are currently alive in. Mostly it is your tone. I either think it is too similar to the way you are playing the other game or too different...I don't really want to say which. Can you blame me? Well I have no problem saying I'm town in the other game, so you are finding my tone different. I don't know that you are wrong on that, but I think your conclusion is flawed. You have to keep in mind that the other game, was the first game I've ever played and everyone was complete strangers when I began. I certainly feel more comfortable now both in terms of the game and of its players, so I'm not surprised that here (and for that matter my more recent play in the other game) my play seems more confident and more aggressive (or whatever it is you are seeing.) There are other factors, no secrets, the likelyhood of impending death making me want to get ideas out, that are causing me to play a bit differently, as well, but I think mostly once people start calling you hawkeyepoop you get comfortable not holding back.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 9:51:26 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 23, 2008 9:51:26 GMT -5
So everyone one seems to agree that we should either use my voting system or Story's. So lets vote to see which system is more popular.
I vote My modified system
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 10:04:40 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 23, 2008 10:04:40 GMT -5
I vote mine. I still don't see the advantage conferred by forcing a run-off period.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 10:17:08 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 23, 2008 10:17:08 GMT -5
Just to prevent the general voting discussion from going on for too long.
Can all votes for the voting system be in by 12:00 EST on 24th.
Then, once that is sorted out, we can start hunting scum.
|
|
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
Jan 23, 2008 10:20:28 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 23, 2008 10:20:28 GMT -5
Did anyone set a deadline for the decision on which system? Because if no-one did then the argument could rage for days.
I'm not wholly comfortable with either idea, primarily because it's all to easy to feel forced into a lynch of someone who you have come to believe is not a scum - for whatever reason. I hada lot of pressure to join the Dotchan bandwagon on Day 1 of the Firefly game. I refused because I'd come to the conclusion that the whole basis was wrong.
You need an out for abstentions of conscience. I won't vote for someone I'm convinced is not scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 10:22:24 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 23, 2008 10:22:24 GMT -5
What I like about the counter to the proposed plan (aka the revised plan) is that it allows for a bit more debate. It also gives two sides of a story instead of a bandwagoning situation. It just seems like having two distinct targets will allow for a better in depth analysis, is all. Except that, for the purposes of this first Day, by the time the proposed advance deadline arrives we'll already have had six days with twenty distinct targets. Narrowing the field to two at that point isn't, in my view, going to make it any more likely that we'll actually achieve a majority. I'm going to try to explain my objection once more, because I'm not doing a good job of it. The goal of instituting this plan, whatever it may be, is not to increase our chances of catching scum. This plan has no effect on that either way. The only goal of this plan is to ensure that we do not have a "no-lynch because we couldn't get a majority." Now, under my plan, in that last 24 hours, because there is only one target, switching your vote to that target becomes a purely mechanical action. There is no strategizing involved. There's no chance for scum to manipulate the outcome. It's just: switch your vote to the leading candidate. It doesn't count. Any given player has no motive whatsoever - beyond being scum - not to make that switch if we agree on it collectively. But open it up to two candidates during the last 24 hours, and now, the voting during that period counts. People will be held accountable for their choice of A vs. B, and so they will approach it differently. Most notably, the scum can distribute their own votes during this period of semi-accountability and affect the outcome - which is exactly what the plan is supposed to help us avoid. The two-candidate idea feels safer, but it is not, because it opens us up to scum manipulation while failing to accomplish the goal for which the idea was developed in the first place. Can I make a huge request, of you if you're not scum and of anyone who is not scum? Can we not do this? This kind of post - "I have a secret special way to catch scum, but I'm not going to tell you what it is" - is counterproductive. It doesn't help any of us, because you're not specifying so whatever it is, we can't use it. It impedes discussion, because people are going to ask you to clarify. And it paints a target on your back, because if you really do have a few tricks up your sleeve, why would the scum leave you alive to use them? So, resolved: if you have an idea that you don't want to share for any reason, rather than make cryptic references to it, don't mention it at all - or at least, until it's time to actually use it.
|
|
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
Jan 23, 2008 10:23:57 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 23, 2008 10:23:57 GMT -5
EBWOP : I see CatinaSuit has called for a deadline.
I support this deadline.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:21:03 GMT -5
Post by Tragic on Jan 23, 2008 11:21:03 GMT -5
Can I make a huge request, of you if you're not scum and of anyone who is not scum? Can we not do this? This kind of post - "I have a secret special way to catch scum, but I'm not going to tell you what it is" - is counterproductive. It doesn't help any of us, because you're not specifying so whatever it is, we can't use it. It impedes discussion, because people are going to ask you to clarify. And it paints a target on your back, because if you really do have a few tricks up your sleeve, why would the scum leave you alive to use them? So, resolved: if you have an idea that you don't want to share for any reason, rather than make cryptic references to it, don't mention it at all - or at least, until it's time to actually use it. Apologies, I now see why this is considered counterproductive. I certainly wasn't trying to be unhelpful and I'll be much more careful about the things I post later. Like I said.. I'm still trying to learn how to play and be useful instead of just an annoyance. Cheers.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:31:50 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 23, 2008 11:31:50 GMT -5
I will not be surprised if we do not actually achieve whichever system we vote for every Day. I think we should keep it looser. Set the 24 hour deadline but leave the rest flexible. If we have two people on the block of public suspicion, we deal with two. If we have one, we deal with one. If we have five, we deal with five.
If that doesn't sound good to anyone else, I will probably cast my vote for the runoff model (striving for 2 people to choose from on the block with 24 hours till Dusk.)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:35:29 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 23, 2008 11:35:29 GMT -5
Re: Storytellers deadline I am actually not a huge fan of the "deadline before the deadline" idea. I don't hate it, and will go along with it if that is the towns decision, but I think forcing that kind of strict mandate takes away the flexibility needed for the town to be able to win this thing. I am, as a general rule, not a fan of any system that is intended to stay implemented without change for the whole of the game.
That being said, I prefer Hawks version of the system to story's, only because it gives us more information if we have 2 people to choose from. If everybody goes for the same person we only get info from their initial vote. If we do the runoff system, we get info from both votes. More info is always better.
If we are to adopt this system I would like to come back to it in 2 Days and reexamine its usefulness. Can we agree to do that?
Re: cookies and her vote for me
My argument may have not been compelling, but that isn't the same as it seeming scummy. Let me point out that meta gaming is almost always used by town. Scum has little need to meta game. In this game it might be different, what with competing factions, but if you are town your only objection to meta gaming should really be that it is rather unfair to the other players.
It is unfair in the same way that intentionally trying to break the game is unfair to the other players, it makes the game a little less fun. But frankly, I have been on the losing team 4 games in a row now. I want to win. It is a preliminary vote based on very little info, it isn't a final vote in any way, and I expect it to change several times toDay. But for toDay at least, I think vote early vote often is a good philosophy. People's reactions to votes help me figure them out. (Yes, I have adopted yet another voting strategy for this game. Hopefully this one will work out better then my last one)
I am far from being the only person to vote yet. I am just one of the only people to claim to have a reason, however slight.
Your vote strikes me as opportunistic. If you are town...knock it off. In this game more then in many others, town doing scummy shit like that is going to lose us the game. Town doing scummy shit lost us the game in Bladerunner, and almost lost the town the game in Firefly.
I am not going to vote for you right now, mostly because I have a hard time reading you. And think that your scummy vote is less scummy, for now, then hawk's tone. Which continues to strike me as off.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:37:31 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jan 23, 2008 11:37:31 GMT -5
Apologies, I now see why this is considered counterproductive. I certainly wasn't trying to be unhelpful and I'll be much more careful about the things I post later. I see no reason for an apology here -- I understand where story is coming from, but I have no problem with players tossing out bits of info like that. Confusion and misdirection is a staple of this game, and one that is crucial for town to put to use. If you can't trip scum up and catch them in a lie (or at least suspicious behavior), then all town can do is vote randomly and hope for the best. You want to toss something like that out there and keep the scum guessing, you go right ahead. And speaking of story -- I agree with his 24h deadline plan.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:48:48 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 23, 2008 11:48:48 GMT -5
Re: Storytellers deadlineI am actually not a huge fan of the "deadline before the deadline" idea. I don't hate it, and will go along with it if that is the towns decision, but I think forcing that kind of strict mandate takes away the flexibility needed for the town to be able to win this thing. I am, as a general rule, not a fan of any system that is intended to stay implemented without change for the whole of the game. That being said, I prefer Hawks version of the system to story's, only because it gives us more information if we have 2 people to choose from. If everybody goes for the same person we only get info from their initial vote. If we do the runoff system, we get info from both votes. More info is always better. If we are to adopt this system I would like to come back to it in 2 Days and reexamine its usefulness. Can we agree to do that? Re: cookies and her vote for meMy argument may have not been compelling, but that isn't the same as it seeming scummy. Let me point out that meta gaming is almost always used by town. Scum has little need to meta game. In this game it might be different, what with competing factions, but if you are town your only objection to meta gaming should really be that it is rather unfair to the other players. It is unfair in the same way that intentionally trying to break the game is unfair to the other players, it makes the game a little less fun. But frankly, I have been on the losing team 4 games in a row now. I want to win. It is a preliminary vote based on very little info, it isn't a final vote in any way, and I expect it to change several times toDay. But for toDay at least, I think vote early vote often is a good philosophy. People's reactions to votes help me figure them out. (Yes, I have adopted yet another voting strategy for this game. Hopefully this one will work out better then my last one) I am far from being the only person to vote yet. I am just one of the only people to claim to have a reason, however slight. Your vote strikes me as opportunistic. If you are town...knock it off. In this game more then in many others, town doing scummy shit like that is going to lose us the game. Town doing scummy shit lost us the game in Bladerunner, and almost lost the town the game in Firefly. I am not going to vote for you right now, mostly because I have a hard time reading you. And think that your scummy vote is less scummy, for now, then hawk's tone. Which continues to strike me as off. So let me get this straight... I vote for you, which is the most powerful direct action I can take to state suspicion, but your spin on my justification for my vote is that "metagaming is a townie thing to do" ergo, I'm using townie behavior as a reason for my vote, which is scummy of me, so I should quit it. But it is not as scummy of me as Hawk's behavior, but that doesn't stop you from endorsing his proposal, even though, like me, you'd rather a less restrictive system for the pre-deadline. Yep. That's gotta be a quintessential Day 1 Mafia moment.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:50:03 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 23, 2008 11:50:03 GMT -5
Huh. Just finally checking in to see the game's started. And it's good to see there's some ideas. And for some reason I've got a vote against me. Without having said ANYThing. Suspicious, but alright, i'll check that ish out.
Should I presume it's a Random Vote, Hawkie? Or did my absence worry you? Anyways, I'm gonna now make a post with my thoughts on the story ideas. I just wanted to address that I see the game has started (Since yeah... a notice of WHEN it starts WOULD have been nice, ya know? :coughs: )
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:53:00 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 23, 2008 11:53:00 GMT -5
[oog]Ro0sh obviously needs another double dose of the koolaid if he is checking these boards so infrequently between games. [/oog]
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 11:54:15 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 23, 2008 11:54:15 GMT -5
The vote was very much not random. It was entirely based on creating a nickname that spread....
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 23, 2008 12:08:53 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 23, 2008 12:08:53 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... I vote for you, which is the most powerful direct action I can take to state suspicion, but your spin on my justification for my vote is that "meta gaming is a townie thing to do" ergo, I'm using townie behavior as a reason for my vote, which is scummy of me, so I should quit it. But it is not as scummy of me as Hawk's behavior, but that doesn't stop you from endorsing his proposal, even though, like me, you'd rather a less restrictive system for the pre-deadline. Yep. That's gotta be a quintessential Day 1 Mafia moment. ;D Here's my problem with voting for you cookies. In my experience, when you are acting extra scummy, you tend to be town. Again, meta gaming, bad NAF, but, hey, it is what it is. I can't force myself to unlearn what I know about how people play the game. In the absence of better evidence Hawk is the scummiest person I see, right now. When more people talk more that will probably change. As far as the system goes, I do not endorse Hawk's proposal, I just chose it as the better of two plans that I don't like. If we are going to restrict ourselves like that, I would at least like to milk as much information from the situation as possible. And I am not going to dismiss an idea just because it might be coming from scum. That way madness lies. I actually quite like your proposal, but you put it up there while I was composing my last post, so I didn't see it (thanks to the great preview with these boards) until I posted.
|
|