Day One

[MiteyMouse]

I love that many of us have come here from FB. That being said, I don't think it's fair to talk about a current game going on on the other site. I mean that for both here and there. I know that Santo has addressed this but, wanted to weigh in a bit on it. It just seems a bit like cheating to me. Now, I have played with many of you before on the other site and may take how you "normally" act into account...but, nothing about the current games.

[MiteyMouse]

Nov 26, 2008 15:24:01 GMT -5 Total Ullz said:

Anyway - who is the most scummy?

MiteyM for posting 2 post after being called a lurker

Make up your mind TL! You are one of my new favourite people but, are confusing me terribly. You call me out for lurking and then call me out for posing? I'm not sure what you want me to do really as apparently, both not posting and posting is considered Scummy!

My day off is tomorrow and Shaggy is working so, I'm hoping to get a chunk of time to really catch up and get a handle on this game.

[MiteyMouse]

Nov 26, 2008 21:07:28 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

As for the accusations of feeling metagamey, I think a great deal of those feelings on my part are caused by having almost all of my experience on the FB site, and having a fair amount of knowledge of some of the players in this game and no knowledge of others. I also have limited knowledge of the set up of the games here.

Special; I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with this game as well right now. It's hard being the newer little fish in the big pond.

[peekercpa]

And this is another no shit post (don't blow a gasket KidV, I'll revert at some point).

Wheree are yall from.

'Cause every time I read TL, AH, chuc and, now, MM I feel like I am getting lectured in an English accent. And I know I will catch pooh (remember Christopher Robinson for this but what the hey.

Of course I am from the country of Texas where we ride our horses hard, eat our meat bloody and really really respect those ladies from the other side of the pond.

[KidVermicious]

Nov 26, 2008 19:57:03 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

oh, what the hell, they can try to interpret me as they see fit.

I don't like this analysis. I think it's too easy to be manipulated by Scum. The Scum can easily change how they are posting. The Scum can even easily suggest analysis that makes certain people look bad. We're even talking about the fact that Scum should be changing how they post. So basically, they're just creating a WiFoM and then making a WiFoM out of the WiFoM.

I guess I'm asking, what's the point?

Of course scum will change tactics. Everything we do to discuss scum-hunting will be in this thread, and of course they're going to attempt to manipulate that. If you allow yourself to be paralyzed by that, you aren't going to get anywhere.

[peekercpa]

Nov 26, 2008 21:36:27 GMT -5 MiteyMouse said:

Nov 26, 2008 21:07:28 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

As for the accusations of feeling metagamey, I think a great deal of those feelings on my part are caused by having almost all of my experience on the FB site, and having a fair amount of knowledge of some of the players in this game and no knowledge of others. I also have limited knowledge of the set up of the games here.

Special; I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with this game as well right now. It's hard being the newer little fish in the big pond.

Hey Ed I feel your angst. The first couple of times I played with the heavy hitters I too was intimidated. And then I learned that the big tree in the forrest just makes a louder noise when it falls. If you have the strength of your convictions you will prevail.

[KidVermicious]

Nov 26, 2008 20:42:08 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

Ok. No shit question. Does anyone use prior game behavior to influnece their perception of an indidividuals' current game play?

I'll go first.

Yes, I do. I was re-reading previous pages and KidV is twigging me. During Skrull he was all about lynching a town power role - Moi - for what I considered spurrious reasons. Now he seems to want to use "fluff" (and apparently I am the major culprit in his opinion) as a basis for determining suspicious/anti town behavior.

It just seems rather manufactured. And also wrong, IMHO.

Vote KidV

And BTW KidV if I didn't post for 72 hours does that now make me pro town? Because I think even you would admit that in between my "acid" ramblings that I do promote healthy doscussion. And, if not, why not?

Actually, Peek, I've joined the conversation about fluff in order to point out that too much noise in the thread makes scum hunting harder. And yes, I would agree that in between your "acid ramblings", you promote discussion. That was rather my point - I prefer any player to post lucid comments, even if it's in an attack on me, over disjointed undecipherable blather.

You and Story both now have painted me as on some sort of crusade against fluff, and I find that interesting. I didn't start that conversation, and I haven't even been the most prolific poster in that particular sub-thread.

I also note your interest in putting words in my mouth ("and apparently I am the major culprit in his opinion"). Do you see no other reason I might have engaged you in particular on the topic?

[special]

Nov 26, 2008 21:49:54 GMT -5 KidVermicious said:

Nov 26, 2008 19:57:03 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

oh, what the hell, they can try to interpret me as they see fit.

I don't like this analysis. I think it's too easy to be manipulated by Scum. The Scum can easily change how they are posting. The Scum can even easily suggest analysis that makes certain people look bad. We're even talking about the fact that Scum should be changing how they post. So basically, they're just creating a WiFoM and then making a WiFoM out of the WiFoM.

I guess I'm asking, what's the point?

Of course scum will change tactics. Everything we do to discuss scum-hunting will be in this thread, and of course they're going to attempt to manipulate that. If you allow yourself to be paralyzed by that, you aren't going to get anywhere.

hahaha, I didn't mean what's the point in trying to win the game. I meant what's the point in analyzing 'lurking' with total's numbers.
I just don't see the benefit of using a strategy that forces everyone to try to post within certain guidelines.

The basic assumption of the strategy is faulty. it basically says that Scum will post less substance than Town. And by operationally defining substance, we've given a blueprint for everyone to fall within the safe range.

So, what's the point in analyzing this?

I could just as easily say that Scum use the letter 'k' more frequently, and we could count it up, and everyone would try to pick words....ooops, I mean select words....that don't have the letter 'k' in them.

[Death By Irony]

I've read the whole thread at least two times.

vote peekercpa

More of a gut thing than a specific post. Something about his attitude feels, I dunno, off.

[KidVermicious]

Mr S Ed, it was said upthread - the point of "chase the lurker" is to get players to post more. More contributions equal more grist for the mill.

[KidVermicious]

Nov 26, 2008 22:12:29 GMT -5 Death By Irony said:

I've read the whole thread at least two times.

vote peekercpa

More of a gut thing than a specific post. Something about his attitude feels, I dunno, off.

Are you sure you're not just keying on his aggression? It's only fair to note that I kinda kicked his puppy.

[Mister Blockey]

Okay I'm going to say this now, so I don't get flak for it later. Some.... unexpected things have come up with me, and I'm much busier than I have been in the past. I'm still able to keep up with the game, but posting when I don't have anything to really say is another matter. My post count is going to be low. This is compounded by the simple fact that I hate day 1, mostly because at the end of the day just about everything we find is in isolation at least, a null tell that needs a day or two to stew.

On the subject of post count analysis, it has it's place in a discussion but not really at the forefront of it.

I apologize for my low post count though, as I know it can be counter productive, I also know though, that I hate posting when I have nothing to say, and I hate day one because I generally have nothing to say on day one.

[special]

Nov 26, 2008 22:13:21 GMT -5 KidVermicious said:

Mr S Ed, it was said upthread - the point of "chase the lurker" is to get players to post more. More contributions equal more grist for the mill.

Then, therein lies said point.

Seems like a lot of work to go to to add some grist, but hey, as long as it's not me doing the work...

here's some extra ellipses...just for fun...

[NAF1138]

Crap, Rugger got on and voted before I could for most of the same reasons (though not all) so this is sort of a me too post.

vote chucara

I will outline more reasons why when I get back. I only have a few seconds right now. I may be able to sneek on more periodically over the next couple of days, but only a few minutes here and there.

[Høøpy Frøød]

Nov 26, 2008 20:51:08 GMT -5 shaggy said:

As for lynch the lurkers. I always hear that lurking is a tall tell of whom is SCUM but I can not help but ask if that is true then would the SCUM not be smart enough to just not lurk then? So by lynching lurkers we may well be eliminating our own people. Yes some times it does pay off and I have seen it work. However I can not help but wonder how often it has went the other way.

Scum don't necessarily lurk. I've played four games before this one. I've been scum twice and town twice. The only time I would have been considered lurking was the middle days of Doperville when I was very busy with real life. I happened to be scum, and probably the fact that I was scum added a bit to the fact that other things in life got considerably more attention since I already had perfect knowledge. But in Gastard, where I was also scum, I was very active as a poster. So just from personal experience, being scum might have an effect on ones posting frequency due to the fact that one already knows a lot of what's going on, so subconsciously one might be quieter, but as an active strategy, it's not that good of an indicator. All of the scum in Doperville were among the most active posters (and peekercpa probably posted as much as the whole town combined did), even with taking my considerable drop off into consideration.

However, not contributing is something that's anti-town anyway. So voting and even lynching those who aren't contributing isn't a horrible strategy, particularly on Day one when there's usually not much to go on.

[Høøpy Frøød]

Nov 26, 2008 21:49:54 GMT -5 KidVermicious said:

Nov 26, 2008 19:57:03 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

oh, what the hell, they can try to interpret me as they see fit.

I don't like this analysis. I think it's too easy to be manipulated by Scum. The Scum can easily change how they are posting. The Scum can even easily suggest analysis that makes certain people look bad. We're even talking about the fact that Scum should be changing how they post. So basically, they're just creating a WiFoM and then making a WiFoM out of the WiFoM.

I guess I'm asking, what's the point?

Of course scum will change tactics. Everything we do to discuss scum-hunting will be in this thread, and of course they're going to attempt to manipulate that. If you allow yourself to be paralyzed by that, you aren't going to get anywhere.

And to continue that line of thought, forcing scum to change tactics is usually a good thing. The more you make scum switch their gambits, the more opportunity they have to screw up somehow. Scum have it easiest when they don't have pressure on them and can just coast with what currently works for them.

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 26, 2008 21:45:30 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

Of course I am from the country of Texas where we ride our horses hard, eat our meat bloody and really really respect those ladies from the other side of the pond.

As opposed to your neighbor to the west, where we ride our ladies hard, eat our horses bloody (and our ladies sometimes, too), and really really respect our horses.

[storyteller0910]

Nov 27, 2008 2:44:52 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Nov 26, 2008 21:45:30 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

Of course I am from the country of Texas where we ride our horses hard, eat our meat bloody and really really respect those ladies from the other side of the pond.

As opposed to your neighbor to the west, where we ride our ladies hard, eat our horses bloody (and our ladies sometimes, too), and really really respect our horses.

Shouldn't that be "really really respect our meat?" Because everyone ought to respect their meat.

Sorry, I have insomnia.

[Chucara]

I'm not really getting the votes on me, as I'm playing pretty much the same way as in last game.

Yes, I left out options, but a complete exhaustive list doesn't give any new information. I don't think it was a scum slip. If I really was scum trying to protect a buddy, I'd be an idiot to protect him like that, as it would out us both.

The problem with your dichotomy is that no matter what I do now, it can always be explained by me being scum.. If FCOD is town, I'm scum because I knew he is town, and if FCOD is scum, I was trying to protect him.

And yes, I am aware that FCOD said he made the slip, but he might be lying..

I don't have much time right now, but I'll try to reply to NAF's reasons for his vote when he posts them. Obviously you're making a mistake, but me saying that won't exactly change anything, now will it

[peekercpa]

Oh and BTW, even before I catch up. For those of you travelling today, be safe. And for all of you Happy Thanksgiving.

Sincerely, you folks do brighten up most of my days. Some, more than others but since it's a holiday I'll keep names out of it until much later.

[Almost Human]

OK so chucara pinged me right from the start but he did in the last game too (yes I know I was scum then but he still pinged me) and proved to be town so I didn't take too much notice. But seeing as it isn't just me here are my thoughts:

Nov 24, 2008 6:31:31 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I think it's pretty hard to define a lurker in a completely consistent way. I do think there's a difference:

Non-participating: Someone not posting at all (should be mod-killed or subbed)

Lurking: Is hard to define. I can fall into the following categories:
- Posting only fluff (can still be an avid poster)
- Dodging though questions, and generally staying under the radar
- Somone posting very rarely

That being said, I don't think we can determine "real" lurkers yet, as we're just coming out of a weekend. However, given a few days, I'd be all for voting of someone from the lurker pool, as the chances of a scum-slip on day one is pretty low. Then again, a no-lynch would also be okay with me if we really don't have a good target, and we stand to gain no information from lynching a person. I'd rather lynch a townie that gives us information about five other players than hope to randomly select a scum member by means of random.org. Sure, we might get lucky, but the odds just aren't that good.

Bleh, I don't know if a good day one strategy exists, but I don't see any better option than to lynch a lurker right now.

(bolding mine)

This was the first thing that struck me. Not only advocating a no lynch which in my opinion is a very bad idea almost always and especially on the first Day. But then he follows with the statement that he'd rather lynch a townie that gives us information about five others. Yes, lynching town is common on the first Day but I don't get the "five players" part at all. Maybe I'm just not understanding the Danish/English translation but it struck me as odd.

Nov 24, 2008 18:04:56 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I've taken the liberty of dividing this post into parts, as I see that it got a bit longer that I expected.. Anyway, skip the parts you see fit

------------- Regarding KidV's comment ----------------

Nov 24, 2008 14:37:00 GMT -5 KidVermicious said:

Chucara: Suggested a no-lynch. There's a clear chance of scum motivation here, but like everything else so far, not enough to justify a lynch yet.

Just to clear things up: I said that I could support a no-lynch if town stood to gain no information from it. Voting records are information. However mostly I said it because I have no idea what good Day one strategy is.



------------- Lynching lurkers --------------
Again, I'm in favour of a lurker lynch, which I think is something we neglected last game - and something I suggested several times last game, and got the same response every time: lurking is a null tell.

Well, now that I've played a few (well.. two) games, I must say that I can't agree with that. Pollux Oil is the most recent example of this. It just strikes me as logic that lurking is the easiest way to hide for scum, and Pollux Oil did a damn good job of surviving last game.

(bolded and snipped)

Again perhaps this is just my interpretation of his wording but this seems to read as though he supports a no lynch if it gives us no information. It makes no sense.

His only giving opinions on FCOD being a power role or vanilla and then considering voting for him have already been discussed so i won't go into that but I do agree with them.

Nov 26, 2008 14:32:26 GMT -5 Chucara said:

Well, isn't the role of a player a dichotomy by default? I mean, he can't possibly be vanilla and a power role. I get your point, and I'm really only thinking aloud here. It's just the way I analyze things.

What bothers me the most is that FCOD seems to me to be too clever a player accidentally make that slip. That leaves me to want to want to try to analyze the possible situations that could've caused his "slip".

Also, exhausting all possibilities would require a much longer list.

The problem is that with FCOD's "slip", he is a likely candidate for a lynch, as he is basically the only one so far that has done anything out of the ordinary, now that molefan is subbed. I'm still considering voting FCOD, but I don't want to do so until I've(we've) thought this through. Right now, assuming that his claim wasn't really a slip, I have problems seeing how this could be a pro-scum move. Not saying that it is pro-town either. Meh.. Maybe it was just a slip, I just think it is a way too obviously one to make, and I don't like that.

That being said, I'd like if we could somehow get some other people in focus.

This also leaves me to unvote miteym as he has actually gone on record with a few opinions.

This also makes me sort of second guess the whole lynch a lurker theory.. It's pretty easy for scum to "stop lurking" now that they know what we're looking for (at least me and totallost). On the other hand, at least it gets them to voice an opinion, and thereby possibly forcing a slip.

(bolding mine)

Where did you get the idea that FCOD was a likely candidate for a lynch? I didn't see him in any great danger at any point of being voted for.

Also your opinion that molefan's being subbed should make a difference to how we view shaggy. The role hasn't changed only the player so if you had any actual suspicions about molefan other than a dislike of early claiming then those suspicions shouldn't have changed.

Nov 27, 2008 3:14:22 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I'm not really getting the votes on me, as I'm playing pretty much the same way as in last game.

Yes, I left out options, but a complete exhaustive list doesn't give any new information. I don't think it was a scum slip. If I really was scum trying to protect a buddy, I'd be an idiot to protect him like that, as it would out us both.

The problem with your dichotomy is that no matter what I do now, it can always be explained by me being scum.. If FCOD is town, I'm scum because I knew he is town, and if FCOD is scum, I was trying to protect him.

And yes, I am aware that FCOD said he made the slip, but he might be lying..

I don't have much time right now, but I'll try to reply to NAF's reasons for his vote when he posts them. Obviously you're making a mistake, but me saying that won't exactly change anything, now will it

(bolding mine)

Damage control or genuine confusion? I really don't know. You could be scum setting FCOD up in the event of your death or really have no idea why people are voting for you. But I don't like the fact that you said "if I were scum I'd be an idiot to protect him like that" - whatever side you're on your words are linking yourself with FCOD whether intentionally or otherwise and right now I don't see a better source of information than your death.

So I'm going to bite the bullet - be the infamous 3rd vote and jump on the chuckwagon.

vote chucara

[Almost Human]

Nov 26, 2008 21:45:30 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

And this is another no shit post (don't blow a gasket KidV, I'll revert at some point).

Wheree are yall from.

'Cause every time I read TL, AH, chuc and, now, MM I feel like I am getting lectured in an English accent. And I know I will catch pooh (remember Christopher Robinson for this but what the hey.

Of course I am from the country of Texas where we ride our horses hard, eat our meat bloody and really really respect those ladies from the other side of the pond.

I'm very very English. TL and chuc are Danish and I think MM is Canadian.

I hate Dick Van Dyke with a passion and can't pass a chimney without shuddering in Mary Poppins-like revulsion.

I ALWAYS have a pot of tea beside me and eat cucumber sandwiches for tea.

Shakespeare rocks and I consider all Yanks uncouth upstarts

Oh and I've just figured out the multi quote thing so I'm very pleased with myself right now, but I do apologise for the enormous post I just made above.

[peekercpa]

Nov 27, 2008 2:52:36 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

Nov 27, 2008 2:44:52 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

As opposed to your neighbor to the west, where we ride our ladies hard, eat our horses bloody (and our ladies sometimes, too), and really really respect our horses.

Shouldn't that be "really really respect our meat?" Because everyone ought to respect their meat.

Sorry, I have insomnia.

Well everyone has a code name for Mr. Jim Bob. Apparently, Santo's is horse.

[Almost Human]

Nov 26, 2008 19:34:33 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

I'm in a difficult spot.

Total and Almost are pursuing this lurker analysis in the game I am modding on FB. I feel like I cannot question this approach without providing them the opportunity to use my comments in the other game. I'm obviously aware of their roles and how successful their approach is proving on FB.

Yes but although we agree on some points we don't agree on all so I'd rather you didn't link us together like that. Not that I think you meant to and I don't have an opinion one way or another on TL's allignment but still.

Nov 26, 2008 20:42:08 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

Ok. No shit question. Does anyone use prior game behavior to influnece their perception of an indidividuals' current game play?

I'll go first.

Yes, I do. I was re-reading previous pages and KidV is twigging me. During Skrull he was all about lynching a town power role - Moi - for what I considered spurrious reasons. Now he seems to want to use "fluff" (and apparently I am the major culprit in his opinion) as a basis for determining suspicious/anti town behavior.

It just seems rather manufactured. And also wrong, IMHO.

Vote KidV

And BTW KidV if I didn't post for 72 hours does that now make me pro town? Because I think even you would admit that in between my "acid" ramblings that I do promote healthy doscussion. And, if not, why not?

Yes I do that too to a certain extent though not so much on this board as I don't know any of you well enough. I also know how differently I play on this board as opposed to the FB one so I'm not doing it with people I've played with before on there either - at least not until I've played a couple of games with them on here too.

On the other board I probably post more than you! Bet everyone's relieved I'm quieter on here

[Total Ullz]

Nov 26, 2008 15:24:01 GMT -5 Total Ullz said:

Anyway - who is the most scummy?

MiteyM for posting 2 post after being called a lurker
or
Cookie for posting a lot of fluff but not really making big contributions to the game (even after the lurker-theory made 2 people vote for lurking alone)

I'm not sure the lynch-a-lurker-thing can bring anything really worth while - but I would like to draw attention to those not posting that much or posting without really saying anything.

I did mean that question as a rhetorical question. I felt after writing the post that the lynch-a-lurker isn't about who to vote for in Day 1 - but just an approach to talk about the players and the way they play the game.

Nov 26, 2008 19:28:09 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

Ah lovely. Already at the top of someone's list as a worthless fluffer.

I would never call you worthless

Nov 26, 2008 21:45:30 GMT -5 peekercpa said:

'Cause every time I read TL, AH, chuc and, now, MM I feel like I am getting lectured in an English accent.

Oh, I didn't know you were bilingual. So you speak English as well as Peekish? ;D

[peekercpa]

It's my own home grown version of Esparanto. One that only the imbibers can totally get down with.

[shaggy]

This is cause With out a specific role claim and then any or no counter claim.

Huh?[/quote]

I was just saying that with out knowing what specific power role that FCOD has it would be bad to vote for FCOD. Let's assume that it is a SCUM tactic then with out someone saying "that is not true cause I am that role/power." Then once again it would be bad for us to vote FCOD. So until such time that we learn the sepecific power role, and then any possible counter claim. It would be bad to lynch FCOD. Which I am not pressing for a full claim, cause I am sure FCOD will tell us when the time is right.

it was like in the FB game, even though I was SCUM I did not vote for you cause I knew that it would be a sign I was in that game because there were no counter claims to gandalf. Despite my being SCUM in that game, I was telling the truth when I said that the execution of what you did was off, but the intent was good.

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 27, 2008 10:12:56 GMT -5 shaggy said:

This is cause With out a specific role claim and then any or no counter claim.

Huh?

I was just saying that with out knowing what specific power role that FCOD has it would be bad to vote for FCOD. [/quote]But that's not what you said. You said you trusted him because of it. Not wanting to vote for somebody and trusting them are two distinctly different statements. Here it is again:

Nov 26, 2008 20:51:08 GMT -5 shaggy said:

personally I am inclined to trust FCOD .

Nov 27, 2008 2:52:36 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

Nov 27, 2008 2:44:52 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

As opposed to your neighbor to the west, where we ride our ladies hard, eat our horses bloody (and our ladies sometimes, too), and really really respect our horses.

Shouldn't that be "really really respect our meat?" Because everyone ought to respect their meat.

Sorry, I have insomnia.

Yes, it was. Sorry, I was getting a blowjob while typing that, so I was trying to get off (line) as quick as possible. The meat was definitely getting respected.

[Total Ullz]

Nov 27, 2008 11:18:16 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Sorry, I was getting a blowjob while typing that, so I was trying to get off (line) as quick as possible. The meat was definitely getting respected.

What a strange coincidence!! I'm giving a blowjob while I'm typing this, so I'll try to get it over with (the typing) as soon as I can...

[Trepa Mayfield]

Hey guys, finally caught up...not quite sure what to think. Lots and lots of noise, not much signal, that's for sure, but it's day one, so that's typical. Don't have any suspects yet...

...
...
...

...yeah.