|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 22:21:09 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 24, 2008 22:21:09 GMT -5
Now, for this plan about setting an artificial deadline 24 hours before a vote, I have one question that I'm wondering about. At what point does a person claim since some people are still talking about claiming and losing powers as a viable option? We always get into issues with people claiming "too early" and such. Should we set some sort of deadline for possible claims? Is somebody that tries to claim after the artificial deadline just out of luck and they're getting lynched no matter what? I don't see any reason why a power-role about to be lynched wouldn't claim. Sure they lose their powers, but they would die anyway, and if there isn't a counter-claim they become mostly confirmed. That said, it's the same as any other game in that claims shouldn't be made until absolutely necessary because our best chance is to keep as many of the power-roles hidden and alive until the end of the game, and once they claim they will still have a target on their back. If we treat the early deadline like a real deadline I don't think it will change anything about claims. The best time to claim would be once they are pretty sure they will be lynched if they don't, but with as much time for the town to find another target without having to rush. The exact timing is of course up to the player, and while I would prefer it be at least 24 hours before the early deadline, if someone claims after the early deadline my default action would be to unvote them and probably vote for the second vote getter. I expect that if the claim comes in this late, though, that it will be a flurry of votes and we'll end up lynching someone without enough time to think it through, which is why I would rather the claim come in earlier.
|
|
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 24, 2008 22:57:15 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 24, 2008 22:57:15 GMT -5
Wikipedia wrote:A Chinese style name, sometimes also known as a courtesy name (zì), is a given name to be used later in life. After 20 years of age, the zì is assigned in place of one's given name as a symbol of adulthood and respect. Primarily used for male names, one could be given a zì by the parents, or adopt a self chosen zì later. In the case of this comic, the men would have further introduced their style names: 玄德 (pronounced Xuande, "Profound Virtue") for Liu Bei and 翼德 (pronounced Yide, "Winged Virtue") for Zhang Fei. Top-of-the-page Vote Count:
4 - Roosh (hawkeyeop, NAF1138, Pleonast, Pygmyrugger) 2 - NAF (ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, RoOsh) 1 - hawkeyeop (Diomedes) 1 - Rugger, Pygmy (Kat) 1 - Hal Briston (storyteller0910) 1 - Denouement (drainbead)(Whoo Hoo! My turn to edit an incorrect post count. I feel better now.) See, this is why I love my co-mod. <3
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:02:29 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jan 24, 2008 23:02:29 GMT -5
Read (okay, skimmed ) through. Too tired to post coherently, but got to respond to this: 3. I gave Pleonast a sad face, so he's voting for me. No! I'm voting for you for the exact thing you're doing now: mischaracterizing others' posts.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:25:45 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 24, 2008 23:25:45 GMT -5
RE: NAF Actually. I really liked your post here. I thought it really clarified some things to me, and I wanna say thank you for taking the time to make it, my own massive posts often do take chunks of time to write and i can certainly understand where if you don't have free periods scheduled in, that it can be tedious to do. Anyways, onto the post even if the links were all broken in them for me. I did. I said I wouldn't vote Cookies yet because I always think she is scummy as hell and I was going to wait for more persuasive evidence in her case. Cookies is special, but she is special in every game. I said the same in Bladerunner, in Seekham, and in Pirates. I say it every game I play with her. For whatever reason Cookies fucks with my scumdar. Sorry that messes you up. I really don't like this association that you have Cookies here, and it just feels weird. Having a player get preferential treatment because of past games... even if it's on a level of just "fucks with my scumdar".... I don't like that sort of thing. I can't say that as being scummy or townie though. It's just foolish. It is anti-town in my book, but it's not scummy. There is a difference. I am always suspicious of Dotchan in every game i've played with her. But I refuse to let the past games of lynching dotchan, or even the current games she's played in let me color my play style. However, yeah, that's caused alot of Townie-deaths when I WAS townie, luckily we were able to pull out a victory each time (and I was amused that the one time I had no interest in lynching her, she was Scum). But still, just as a on a playing level, I treat each player equally at the start and I just don't think that's very wise of you to have this "special" treatment of Cookies. I view her as a strong player, but she's been scum before and she's been town before. Judge her for what she is in THIS game and your feelings as such. Ouch, a personal attack (calling me sad) and an accusation of being hypocritical. You Hypocritical yes, but I didn't mean to call you Sad- i was referring to the tactic you were using . However, your post has show me that I DO tend to slip in words that can be construed as ad hominem attacks. Just because I can filter it in my head what's sarcastic and what's not doesn't mean it's coming across on paper. Thank you for showing me that, and that's on me to try to rectify. Wanna explain why I am a sad hypocrit? Personal attacks are usually a sign of desperation, I liked using them when I was scum so people would stop thinking rationally. The attack isn't much of a scum tell. You saying I don't have reasons for my vote, on the other hand, is. Scum point #2 This is where I refer to you not having reasons actually: You also should stop acting scummy. Think of it as an FOS on you too, but more of an FOS with intent to change my vote. I am going to need to think on it a bit. You posted that tidbit with your 75th Post. And then in your 78th Post you reply to Cookies: I understand your point Cookies. It is totally 100% not fair. I disagree that it is not productive. I have learned a heck of a lot about some people already. And besides, it is something that you can't really not do. If you know how someone plays, you take that into account. Hell, its one of the reasons I am not voting for you. I am ready to unvote Hawkeyeop Vote Roosh This is what caused me so much confusion, and one of the main reasons I disliked your vote. Your whole interaction with Cookies was just odd to me in the first place where she brings up issues, and you then just vote me straight from just saying "hey, you should stop acting so scummy." --the Timing of the posts just cause me to be highly suspicious of you that just thinking it over for an hour suddenly caused you to be MORE suspicious of Me than of Cookies, who I felt was bringing up the same points vs. You, NAF. --But you've explained that as Cookies fucks with your scumdar, but I don't. Again. I'm not a fan of this whole thing, and that's what's caused the greatest problem with your voting of me. But fine, you have a reason for the difference I suppose. Even if its one I REALLY dislike. You wanna tell me why it is scummy then I will take it under advisment. I am voting for you because you are spinning facts, how is that scummy? Saying it is doesn't make it so. Again, this is points against me as I was sarcastically using your reference to Cookies and myself vs. you. I had said the "Quit being so scummy" because that's what you've said to Cookies and then to Me. However, you followed up that to me with a Vote while cookies is told that's she's a wonderful person just someone who "fucks with your scumdar" and basically gets a free pass basically. This is the inconsistency that I see and I disliked in your actions. But you have explained the difference between cookies and myself. Hey man, you are the person who put meta gaming on the table as part of their argument against me. You made it a whole seperate point, and then said "well it isn't really part of my argument...but I am just throwing it out there" It was a nice subtle smudge. I will call that scum point #3. : sigh : The Metagaming this at this point is just twisted out now. I NEVER had a problem Scum-wise against your metagaming. I disliked it from a personal viewpoint. However, I had brought it up simply to provide context with what I disliked LATER on. Now it seems I never should have brought it up, I should have just gone straight to what my problem with your actions were. As you continually seem to bring up the metagaming as if it were used against you. It hasn't been. And I will imply and claim that I am town all day long. I am, why shouldn't I? This was the focus of that whole metagaming issue. It was the fact that you imply and claim that you're town. BEFORE YOU HAD ANY HEAT ON YOU. What townie does that? At the start of the game just go "I'm Town!" It's not needed. The fact that you were doing this at the start of the game BEFORE I had accused you or before you really had even gotten any heat is what really caused me to go "What the heck is he doing??" Here, to make it easier: Let me just show you the post that caused all these problems with the underlined parts that made me go... this is just really unneeded: 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. You had received one vote. But immediately you start going on with the how townie you are, and how your vote is a completely townie vote and the "if you are Town, you should". It just seemed really unnecessary and overdone to me, and set off warning flags. Combined with the end towards Cookies, where you semi-attack her and you kinda reassure her at the same time.... Cookies was saying I was scummy for meta gaming. I said meta gaming isn't scummy. You said I implied that it was a town tell, I said I don't speak in absolutes (even made a joke about it) and that I really felt it was a null tell, or meaningless. You said null tells are totally scummy, at least it is scummy to point out that something is not a scum tell becasue scum might do it. I said, dude I KNOW that is why it gives us nothing. I feel this is misquoting me. I did not say Null tells are scummy, I have said, and still am saying that your actions were unnecessary at that point in the game. The post I have problems with is right above you. It's riddled with implications that Scum don't metagame; That there's only one reason to object to you if you're Town; that finding you suspicious/voting for you is apparently scummy, if you're Town that is. The whole post to me felt like it read of you telling people "If you're Town, you should TOTALLY not object to me or find me suspicious in any way. Because only Scum would find me scummy." -No metagaming, no null tells, nothing of that. THIS post above is the biggest thing about you that set off bells to me. And then you're the one who brings in the idea that it's a null tell and you go down THAT tangent, which i will admit has distracted me and does make it easy for you to twist my words around. As my initial and major issue with you is all in the FIRST post you had before you created the meta-gaming issue,and before you had this null-tell business. Smudge and belittle Hawk. :sigh: it was a direct quote. The nickname IS "Hawkeyepoop", but if you'll see i've been calling him Hawkie more often than not this game so far. This isn't why Pleo voted for you. It isn't even close. Okay I have no idea why Pleo voted for me, I can't tell where he's being serious or not, as I had said nothing to him but apparently he's taking my two lines to him personally? I've got no clue. **ON PREVIEW** No! I'm voting for you for the exact thing you're doing now: mischaracterizing others' posts. Okay, fair enough. By "other's" do you mean NAF, or you feel I've slighted others too, as I'd love to clarify on those if I have. Thought you said opportunistic voting was not a scum tell in this setup? Here's a quote: -my quote snipped- I disagree, but that is rather inconsisten of you, don't you think? scum point #7 This is a completely valid point against me. You are correct in this, and it is noted. I am and was inconsistent there. I will try to correct this in the future, and thank you for pointing it out to me. That is unfortunately a valid scum point against me. However, I know I'm not scum, and I love that you've created so many points against me... But perhaps you need to have your scumdar checked? And perhaps I as well. I am torn on you, NAF. Hopefully, I have tried to explain just WHY i have found you so problematic and why you've been ringing my scumdar. However, others have mentioned that you and I have been butting heads, and taking up much of the talk this Day. I still think you're highly suspicious, and in part I think you implicate Cookies. ---As basically if one of you were scum, i would be lying if I didn't say that i would def. look EXTREMELY hard at the other person then the next Day. Your feelings on dismissing Cookie just doesn't sit well with me and I feel like you're biased to her, which obv. sets off MY scumdar. In essence, I could even go so far as to say it has crossed my mind that perhaps you two's argument was a fake one and I blundered into the middle of it. However, this is a huge leap to make and its a slight one in my mind, but it is there. I still consider you very scummy. I just want to change my vote right now, because as scummy as you are, you are no longer the scummiest person toDay in my book. But you def. are up there, I just think I need to keep an eye out though, and see how you play perhaps on later Days maybe? Because I can't tell if you're just a stubborn tunnel-vision Townie, or a Scummy dude who's just planting straw men in a field and succeeding at it (yes, I know that could be an Ad hominem however, I did also say you might not be that. I'm just not sure). I would however be willing to lynch you, I would be a liar if i said otherwise. If you're a possible lynch candidate toDay, you will see my vote in there for sure currently. I think I need to step back for now from just butting heads with you though and address others. Do you see where I'm coming from better though now with the post i have issues with, or just no, I'm totally scummy in your book? Unvote NAF
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:29:43 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jan 24, 2008 23:29:43 GMT -5
Well, since skimming is a scum tell, I'm going to wait until I get to work tomorrow so I can have plenty of time to digest post #91. Well... I have to confess that roosh's posts force me to skim them. Dude... could you please try to be a bit less verbose? I actually think it helps scum when you monopolize the discussion and make eyes glaze over. Please, please cut down on your posts, roosh
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:32:06 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jan 24, 2008 23:32:06 GMT -5
(snip) meta-gamingI am surprised that no-one has mentioned that scum will meta-game to find town power roles where the style of play is slightly different to being vanilla. Saying the scum almost never meta-game is not only wrong but coming from someone who has played a fair amount of scum roles is interesting. (snip) ... I can't place that quote. Who said it?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:35:34 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 24, 2008 23:35:34 GMT -5
I still haven't seen anything yet that personally trips my scumdar, but that has proven fairly unreliable so far. So I'm not sure yet were to place my vote, but we have a few days yet, so I'm happy to hold off for a little bit yet. OK Greedy "Peasant" Smurf, this is bugging me. Your recent post ( 1.119) was basically a null post. You say you aren't convinced by the case against Roosh and NAF, so won't vote for them yet. Fine. But then you say no one is scummy so you're going to wait a bit. Not feeling strongly enough to vote for someone doesn't seem strange to me -- I haven't voted yet either. It isn't because no one is tripping my scumdar, though, it's the opposite. I'm seeing scum around every corner. This is a very unreliable scumtell because I've seen townies express the same sentiment, but when I see someone on Day 1 with low participation saying "nope, no one seems scummy, nuh uh" it strikes me as possible scum trying to feign innocence. If the whole point of your post is to say that the vote leaders don't seem scummy to you, and neither does anyone else, instead of posting go back and re-read the thread and find someone that does. Your last post probably wouldn't have sent up the red flag like it did but you did the same thing in post 1.86: Is it possible that Roosh is getting more verbose? That was a monter first post mate! I will vote for Story's voting plan but agree that it should not be a straightjacket for us. I want to let a little bit more discussion to develop toDay before placing my vote, in the hope of avoiding a completely random vote from me.[underline added] Why do you feel the need to point out that you are holding back your vote two posts in a row? It seems preemptively defensive to me. Your only other post was 1.29: This is what I get for living in OZ. I refresh every half hour all day yesterday waiting for the game to start, and then I have to sleep, and we're almost one page in before I can check again. I can happily get behind either of the voting plans, as we need some plan of action to ensure we don't get a no lynch. I think in this game the plans are workable because the scum are split into 3 competing groups which means we don't have to really worry about them being able to manipulate the outcome of the 'vote off' Those three posts have been your entire contribution to the game so far. I always feel like a hypocrite when I call people out for low participation because I'm not a very prolific poster myself, but when people make a point of posting just to post it bothers me. When I don't have anything to say I just don't post. Posting nothing but fluff posts this early in the game is also a weak scumtell, but the pattern seems very scummy to me. Vote Smurf
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:39:35 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 24, 2008 23:39:35 GMT -5
Dude... could you please try to be a bit less verbose? I actually think it helps scum when you monopolize the discussion and make eyes glaze over. Please, please cut down on your posts, rooshNoted. I will try to be concise. Sorry. (Just remembering the Day 1 of Firefly and trying to avoid that). I'll make smaller posts, and thank you for just asking me to cut down. I didn't say I found you suspicious, and I didn't place a drive by vote. If you'll read the quote I posted, of myself, in the post I voted for you, you'll find I don't want to be forced to skim over your posts. -snip- I didn't want to be a dick about it, but I thought I made my reason clear by saying I didn't want to skim shit. This is the WORST reasoning I've EVER seem for trying to get someone lynched. It's Anti-Town at best, and Scummy at Worst. This is just a bullshit reason to vote for someone who's already got heat on him. I can't see why you couldn't just ask me to cut down on my Post sizes, trying to get me lynched is just well... shitty. And so for simply trying to get someone lynched for what I think is the SHITTIEST reasoning I've seen yet in this game, I'll have to give you my vote. Vote S.Rugger
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:40:47 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jan 24, 2008 23:40:47 GMT -5
(snip) At what point does a person claim since some people are still talking about claiming and losing powers as a viable option? We always get into issues with people claiming "too early" and such. Should we set some sort of deadline for possible claims? Is somebody that tries to claim after the artificial deadline just out of luck and they're getting lynched no matter what? I don't know about the second part. But the first part? Well, I've always believed the individual has to choose when and how to claim. Once (as a Doctor) I claimed when scum ( Pygmy Rugger) actually had beat me to the punch. However, I had placed a "sleeper" quote to help people believe me. Another time I claimed very early. Other times I couldn't claim at all. It's far too much context-based, in other words, it depends on the individual and the situation. I don't think we should dictate a policy on that part. I also don't think someone with an unchallenged power role claim should be lynched. So, should the situation arise, I'm quite willing to rescind my vote in that situation. Should there be a counterclaim, however... well, it depends on who is doing the claiming.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:42:08 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 24, 2008 23:42:08 GMT -5
(snip) meta-gamingI am surprised that no-one has mentioned that scum will meta-game to find town power roles where the style of play is slightly different to being vanilla. Saying the scum almost never meta-game is not only wrong but coming from someone who has played a fair amount of scum roles is interesting. (snip) ... I can't place that quote. Who said it? I believe it was NAF in post 1.53 (I quoted it above in my monster post)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 24, 2008 23:43:23 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jan 24, 2008 23:43:23 GMT -5
Denouement, AKA Tragic. <snip> This is all pretty strange to me. The big thing for me is that Tragic is not a noob. Huh...I missed that one. I didn't recognize the name, and just assumed that Denouement was either brand new or had only played in Blade Runner (for obvious reasons, I missed 98% of that one). Hmmmm....
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 0:30:48 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 25, 2008 0:30:48 GMT -5
unvote: hawkeyeop
vote: Roosh
He knows why...
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 1:06:06 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 1:06:06 GMT -5
Dude... could you please try to be a bit less verbose? I actually think it helps scum when you monopolize the discussion and make eyes glaze over. Please, please cut down on your posts, rooshNoted. I will try to be concise. Sorry. (Just remembering the Day 1 of Firefly and trying to avoid that). I'll make smaller posts, and thank you for just asking me to cut down. I didn't say I found you suspicious, and I didn't place a drive by vote. If you'll read the quote I posted, of myself, in the post I voted for you, you'll find I don't want to be forced to skim over your posts. -snip- I didn't want to be a dick about it, but I thought I made my reason clear by saying I didn't want to skim shit. This is the WORST reasoning I've EVER seem for trying to get someone lynched. It's Anti-Town at best, and Scummy at Worst. This is just a bullshit reason to vote for someone who's already got heat on him. I can't see why you couldn't just ask me to cut down on my Post sizes, trying to get me lynched is just well... shitty. And so for simply trying to get someone lynched for what I think is the SHITTIEST reasoning I've seen yet in this game, I'll have to give you my vote. Vote S.RuggerEhh. I've asked you to cut down. Others have asked you to cut down. You don't give a shit. And neither do I. I consider what you're doing, and have done, to be anti-town. It draws attention to you, keeping myself, amongst other people, from focusing on finding scum. If you are scum, on the other hand, you're largely ignored as a suspect because your posts always read like a teenage girl talking about her first kiss at a slumber party. If removing that anti-town sentiment, in which several have agreed (and asked nicely now and in the past) end up largely just skimmed, then fuck it; lead your charge and lynch me now. I'd rather not deal with it, personally, and I feel it's as good of a reason for a Day 1 vote as any. No offense.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 1:43:19 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 25, 2008 1:43:19 GMT -5
I would like to reply to your thoughts Nesta but I'm about 5 minutes away from leaving work. When I get home from Cricket tonight I will hopefully have time to post a proper reply to these 'scumtells' you have 'discovered'.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 8:11:57 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 25, 2008 8:11:57 GMT -5
Ok,
Time to start looking at the players and see what we can find. This will be the first of a few posts as and when I have time for this.
Hockey Monkey - Curious to see who she votes for and why.
Denouement - Is not a newbie, would be interested in her supposed methods for identifying small scum groups
Hal Briston - In an open game like this throwing out disinformation is unhelpful to the town. In a closed game, I can understand your point of view. Tripping scum out does not have to be done with disinformation.
drainbead. Raises an interesting point about denouement
Kat - no read. No comment on anyone yet.
mhaye - no read. No comment on anyone yet.
diomedes - votes Roosh and it would be good to get a reason for it as he may know, but some of the rest of us don't
Koldenar - Mainly comments on game structure and not on the players.
Pleonast - Votes Roosh for mischaracterisation of posts
Peasant Smurf - Comments on the top two voters but no vote placed yet.
Other stuff Considering that they are 2 person scum groups, I would expect defence of players to be more significant then usual and more common than wouild normally occur with a 5 person scum group where they can afford to lose a player.
Defence Posts #54 Hal Briston of denouement #118 drainbead of Roosh
So from this half of the list.
Possible Scum list denouement
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 9:53:40 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 25, 2008 9:53:40 GMT -5
The second part of analysis of players. diggitcamara - Comments on game, gameplay and asking roosh to tone down his posts. nesta - 4 very solid posts on game and structure. Interesting points made on Peasant Smurf. However other people have made even less note or contribution. atarus - Mainly comments on the game, but also provided thoughts on hawkeyeop's post re: tone at Roosh's request. Santo rugger - A couple of comments on the game and then going after Roosh due to the length of his posts and anti-town behaviour And now for the bigger posters hawkeyeop - Very interesting Day 1 post suggesting we lynch claimers regardless, provides amendment to Storytellers vote plan. Provides reasoning as to why his tone is different between the two games even though he states he is town in both. Admits reason for voting Roosh is over the nickname. Cookies - A couple of comments on the game, and considers NAF scummy over his use of meta-gaming. Raises an interesting point over the position Roosh has placed her in. storyteller - Starts off with several posts about voting and game strategy for the town. Votes for Hal Briston over his suggestion the town should use misdirection. NAF1138 - Starts off with a large meta-game vote, then defends it for a while, then switches to Roosh. Provides reasoning as to why he is voting for Roosh and why he considers him so scummy. Roosh - Big posts, covering everything going on. Right first off: Night zero - his Pleonast vote was fine, what struck me as really odd was his sudden retraction. His huge post pretty much mentions every post since the start of the Day - Why? ?? Then at the bottom of the post he votes Hawkeyeop on the basis he made a scum slip. Next he says that we are dealing with SK's rather than standard scum and says that all townie and scum tells are crap. He unvotes Hawkeyeop after accepting his explanation on tone. Then he calls on atarus to answer some questions followed by voting NAF1138 which to me looks like an OMGUS vote. Next he likes NAF1138's post and goes through it answering point by point. At the end he says NAF1138 is no longer the scummiest in his book, and unvotes him. He doesn't vote anyone else or even mention who else he considers scummy. Finally he votes Santo Rugger because of his vote for Roosh. No voting for the scummiest player or who else is considered scummy, just an OMGUS vote Scum listRoosh denouement
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 9:55:55 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 25, 2008 9:55:55 GMT -5
Morning Vote Count Roosh (5) : Hawkeyeop, NAF, Pleonast, Santo Rugger, diomedes NAF (1) : Cookies Hal Briston (1) : storyteller Santo Rugger (2) : Kat, Roosh Denouement (1) : drainbead greedy smurf (1) :nesta
Grrr. that's it, I'm writing a program to do the accounting for me, the spreadsheet just isn't cutting it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 10:02:52 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 25, 2008 10:02:52 GMT -5
Sach,
Dio unvoted me when he voted Roosh.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 10:04:17 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 25, 2008 10:04:17 GMT -5
Noted.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 10:26:03 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 25, 2008 10:26:03 GMT -5
And so the conclusions: NAF1138, this is going to be the second time I nominate you as a stupid townie. Nothing personal, but the meta-gaming vote doesn't help. Also, if you have a problem reading people as scum or town, telling them to stop is a bit pointless. You need to change how you look at them or just get used to their style of play. Now only two people are giving me that scummy vibe so far. denouement and roosh. However, if the assumption is made they are scum, I am also looking closely at Pleonast and Hal Briston as co-conspirators for these two. Pleonast - due to Roosh's night posts Hal Briston - due to his defense of denouementScum tells: I will point out that the scum will still give off scum tells. If you want an example, check Death By Irony's LolCats game. The three scum there gave off plenty of scum tells to be spotted. Even in a party of two, they will occur, especially after a couple of days. Finally: Its time to vote for someone. For his weird Night 0 action, his reason for his initial vote which he disclaimed in his next post. His following votes which appear to be more OMGUS instead of having a reason and not for the scummiest player. For someone who seems to be playing very loudly and looks to be trying to get others to provide his reasoning. As far as Day 1 goes, its as good as any. vote Roosh
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 11:20:57 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 11:20:57 GMT -5
Scum tells: I will point out that the scum will still give off scum tells. If you want an example, check Death By Irony's LolCats game. The three scum there gave off plenty of scum tells to be spotted. Even in a party of two, they will occur, especially after a couple of days. I want to comment on this, specifically, because I think you're leaving something out with this analogy. The difference between dot's LOLCats game (which I watched with great amusement, by the way) and this one is that in the previous game, even though there were only three scum, the essential nature of the game, and of the scum's task within it, was identical to that of every other game until this one (well, with one exception, but more on that presently). After some consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this game is by far the hardest the town will have to handle. Our chances of winning are not good, and we're going to need a bit of luck even if we play perfectly. Thing is, scum tells arise from two things: (1) perfect (or increased) knowledge; and (2) the need to pursue an outcome opposed to that of the majority. In most games, scum are using their perfect knowledge to try to bring about the short- or long-term mislynch of townies and/or the outing of power roles. Scum tells are really just indications that the scum know something they shouldn't, and/or are trying to accomplish something that doesn't reflect pro-town goals. That is true in any game with scum. Except this one. In this game, the scum know much less than the scum in a standard game, as a percentage of the overall available knowledge. On most subjects, any given scum is just as clueless as the rest of us. The optimal - and easiest, and most effective - Daytime strategy for scum would appear to be to play as a townie. Scum in this game will spend the Day genuinely, sincerely, and openly studying the evidence and trying to find other scum and get them lynched. If they do this, it will make them utterly indistinguishable from other townies, and accomplish their goals. Good scum in this game will be trying to kill off the other factions during the Day and kill off townies at Night. And that's hugely problematic for me. I'm used to trying to spot scum based on finding evidence that they know more than I do, or that they're trying to make a particular outcome. If scum can hide by not pretending to hunt other scum but by actually hunting other scum, then... well, frankly I don't know what to do then.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 11:21:52 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 11:21:52 GMT -5
Oh! The exception was Pleonast's Conspiracy, which also had multiple scum factions with less-than-perfect knowledge, but the existence of so many power roles made that game a unique entity in its own right.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 11:37:41 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 25, 2008 11:37:41 GMT -5
In this game, the scum know much less than the scum in a standard game, as a percentage of the overall available knowledge. On most subjects, any given scum is just as clueless as the rest of us. The optimal - and easiest, and most effective - Daytime strategy for scum would appear to be to play as a townie. Scum in this game will spend the Day genuinely, sincerely, and openly studying the evidence and trying to find other scum and get them lynched. If they do this, it will make them utterly indistinguishable from other townies, and accomplish their goals. Good scum in this game will be trying to kill off the other factions during the Day and kill off townies at Night. And that's hugely problematic for me. I'm used to trying to spot scum based on finding evidence that they know more than I do, or that they're trying to make a particular outcome. If scum can hide by not pretending to hunt other scum but by actually hunting other scum, then... well, frankly I don't know what to do then. The point I was trying to make, although badly it seems, is that even with a small group of scum, they will still make slips pointing out other scum they know, ie. their partner. In that game, Greedy Smurf led me to Hal Briston who led me to ui through slips and scummy play. The thing to remember is that the scum do have an objective and will be looking to carry it out. They have to get the other scum lynched during the day because after the first they cannot night kill them. This may lead to the same situation as the scum trying to get a town power role put on the block given that we are likely to lynch anyone claiming vanilla. The difference being of course, is that the scum are likely to put anyone on the block they fail to Night kill either as a doctor or as a sole scum. However, their reasoning will come from extra knowledge and not from open play. That is the kind of thing we have to look out for.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 11:46:59 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 25, 2008 11:46:59 GMT -5
The thing to remember is that the scum do have an objective and will be looking to carry it out. They have to get the other scum lynched during the day because after the first they cannot night kill them. My problem is that this goal, as you describe it, is identical to my own. I want to get scum lynched during the Day, too. I agree that clumsy scum might telegraph their single relationship, but more careful scum should be able to camo that, given how many other alternatives there are. True. But such a development is at best a few Days in our future, which puts me at a bit of a loss right now. I have some ideas, but they are vague and half-formed. More later.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 11:58:54 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 25, 2008 11:58:54 GMT -5
All Hail Matlab and the script produced vote count:
Greedy Smurf (1) : nesta Hal Briston (1) : storyteller0910 NAF1138 (1) : Cookies RoOsh (6) : hawkeyeop, NAF1138, Pleonast, Santo Rugger, Diomedes, CatInASuit Santo Rugger (2) : Kat, RoOsh Denouement (1) : drainbead
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:15:38 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 12:15:38 GMT -5
The thing to remember is that the scum do have an objective and will be looking to carry it out. They have to get the other scum lynched during the day because after the first they cannot night kill them. My problem is that this goal, as you describe it, is identical to my own. I want to get scum lynched during the Day, too. I agree that clumsy scum might telegraph their single relationship, but more careful scum should be able to camo that, given how many other alternatives there are. It is not identical. As acknowledged below, when scum find an immune-to-night-kills-person, they'll want to pursue them. I assume that while you say your goal is identical, you surely don't mean your methodology to achieve said goal is identical. That's where the tell will come in. True. But such a development is at best a few Days in our future, which puts me at a bit of a loss right now. I have some ideas, but they are vague and half-formed. More later.[/quote] All developments in these games, barring a major slip, are a few Days from the start of the game. I fail to see how this one is different. Nobody ever knows what to do on Day 1, but later motivations are often found in the first few (3-4) Days that weren't clear at the time. When playing as scum, I was terrified that people would go back and look at Day 1 and find all the stupid mistakes I made, that became obvious and hindered fake claims later. Be patient, things will emerge later, we can play it by ear for now. As long as everybody's talking, the little slips will show up upon a Day 1 reread on Days 4 and 5.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:15:46 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 12:15:46 GMT -5
And so the conclusions: NAF1138, this is going to be the second time I nominate you as a stupid townie. Nothing personal, but the meta-gaming vote doesn't help. Also, if you have a problem reading people as scum or town, telling them to stop is a bit pointless. You need to change how you look at them or just get used to their style of play. Quick question. Why is my vote getting so much traction? All the random votes are being ignored, my vote was an early first vote that was based on something more then just randomly picking a name. Why is that bad? I even unvoted after I found a better reason to vote for someone? What goes on here? Telling people to stop being scummy may be pointless, but you are watching my game and there is one player in particular that you have repeatedly said is doing the scums work for them. If you were in a position to do so, wouldn't you like to tell them to knock it off? Like I said, cookies frequently acts scummy when she is playing town, that doesn't mean I don't want her to stop acting scummy, it just means that scum tells that work for 99% of the population don't work for her. Agian, this is not the first time I have said any of this, but this is the first time anyone has made an issue out of it. I find that to be interesting. Now only two people are giving me that scummy vibe so far. denouement and roosh. However, if the assumption is made they are scum, I am also looking closely at Pleonast and Hal Briston as co-conspirators for these two. Pleonast - due to Roosh's night posts Hal Briston - due to his defense of denouementScum tells: I will point out that the scum will still give off scum tells. If you want an example, check Death By Irony's LolCats game. The three scum there gave off plenty of scum tells to be spotted. Even in a party of two, they will occur, especially after a couple of days. Agreed, would you mind gonig into more detail about what you think these folks did that is scummy? Finally: Its time to vote for someone. For his weird Night 0 action, his reason for his initial vote which he disclaimed in his next post. His following votes which appear to be more OMGUS instead of having a reason and not for the scummiest player. For someone who seems to be playing very loudly and looks to be trying to get others to provide his reasoning. As far as Day 1 goes, its as good as any. vote Rooshhmm, there is a lot I don't like about all of the above. current suspicion list: Roosh CIAS Pesant Smurf (I will get to you in my next post)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:23:00 GMT -5
Post by Tragic on Jan 25, 2008 12:23:00 GMT -5
Just for the record..
I still consider myself a newbie. I never tried to hide behind a "new name"and make people forget I was Tragic. In my mind since I'm still not that knowledgeable on Mafia means that I'm a new player. I've played 1 full game here, subbed out of another and played 1 full game on another site. By my standards and definitions that means I'm a new player. I still don't know what I'm doing..
Cheers,D.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:25:41 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 25, 2008 12:25:41 GMT -5
ok, I lied. In my NEXT post I will talk about Smurfy. And that's hugely problematic for me. I'm used to trying to spot scum based on finding evidence that they know more than I do, or that they're trying to make a particular outcome. If scum can hide by not pretending to hunt other scum but by actually hunting other scum, then... well, frankly I don't know what to do then. You are overthinking it story. The game is still the same, all the basics are still the same, and scum still have an agenda. Additionally, the scum CAN'T do some of the things that they could in order to distance themselves from each other in this game that they could in previous games. So instead of looking for perfect knowledge, look for people who are trying too hard to keep themselves alive and, more importantly, people who are trying too hard to keep ONE SPECIFIC PERSON alive. All the other rules for scum catching will still apply. Misdirection and hiding in plain sight are still going to be hallmarks for scum, moreso in this game, becasue again, they have more to lose. They can't throw each other to the wolves without significantly jepordizing their chances of losing. This will be harder, but I am mostly concerned with the odds being against us, not in the imposibility of finding scum.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 25, 2008 12:31:04 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 25, 2008 12:31:04 GMT -5
Just for the record.. I still consider myself a newbie. I never tried to hide behind a "new name"and make people forget I was Tragic. In my mind since I'm still not that knowledgeable on Mafia means that I'm a new player. I've played 1 full game here, subbed out of another and played 1 full game on another site. By my standards and definitions that means I'm a new player. I still don't know what I'm doing.. Cheers,D. Some of us were considered "grizzled veterans" after Day 3 of Werewolf, the second game on the dope. That was a doozie!
|
|