Day One

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 30, 2008 21:18:07 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

As for FCOD, he's admitted as much that he hasn't got a vanilla PM. At this point, however, this tells us very little. If there turn out to be a very high ratio of vanilla to power townies it might indict him, but beyond that, I don't see it coming into play. In fact, I think it was bad play to point it out in such an odd fashion. A direct accusation, followed by a direct rebuttal, might have been forgotten by scum due to the long day (after all, the scum are players too). If they hadn't pointed it out, FCOD would have been barely a blip to them. But because of the way it was handled, he's sure to factor into all of their nightly decisions. Not much we can do about it now, just something to file away for future games.

You make a good point, if it wasn't for the fact that you're completely wrong. Give me a break, do you really think an entire team of scum would have missed that the first time around? That's the kind of thing they're looking for. How many times have you seen a power role killed Night 1? Why do you think that is? And how would a direct accusation and a direct rebuttal have been forgotten any more than the original slip? What do you think a possible forgettable rebuttal would have been, other than the one given. Sounds to me like you're trying to smudge those involved in the conversation (especially NAF, who brought it into the limelight), with absolutely no basis.

[storyteller0910]

Dec 1, 2008 8:38:58 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Sounds to me like you're trying to smudge those involved in the conversation (especially NAF, who brought it into the limelight), with absolutely no basis.

Longer post forthcoming on many subjects, but in response to the above, which I just saw, I have the following deeply intellectual reply:

nuh uh

pedescribe was very specifically describing the way FCoD was outed as "bad play," not as scummy play. I don't agree with this characterization, by the way, but he made the distinction. If we're going to make an effort to distinguish bad play from scummy play - and we ought to, after all these games - than conflating an accusation of the one with an accusation of the other, as you've done above, is not a good idea.

[Santo Rugger]

I understand your sentiment, but I believe smudge can be used to, well, smudge somebody's character. Regardless of if the play is bad play or scummy play, pointing it out as negative is still a smudge, IMHO. I completely agree that we ought to make the distinction; if you've got a word we can use that would fit the form "smudge is to scummy play as X is to bad play", I'm all ears.

[shaggy]

Nov 30, 2008 10:19:05 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

As I said before, I do find shaggy's play suspicious.

He seems to be reaching out at everyone and attacking them. And he seems to be spreading confusion, which isn't normally what I've seen from him. And if this is a sign of his growth as a player, then Yikes!

I do not mean to be confusing, I am sorry if it comes a cross as hard to follow. I dunno if I would say I am attacking everyone. I have said I am only really suspicious of 3 people, here. Being you, Totallost, and Churara. Though looking at the votes, I would say I am not the only one.
Maybe I am a little more blunt in my suspicions then others, and for that I am sorry. I do not mean to seem like I am attacking anyone.
As of right now, I am at a loss for which one to vote for the most. Each has a bit of odd posts but also plausible explanations.

I just think during my first full game Santo's was right in calling me out, cause I never really did add any suspicions, FOS's or anything. In the last game I feel it was laid out so well that by the time I added my thoughts it was merely solidifying what others had already said or felt. So I feel like this is the first game where by I really have to come out and state my suspicions and theories.
I am not trying to seem like I am attacking anyone, I am just trying to help us flush out who the real SCUM are. If I am coming across as aggressive or confusing, I am sorry.

Nov 30, 2008 10:54:02 GMT -5 sinjin said:

Just a couple of general thoughts on Sunday morning.

[I'm glad I'm not the only one can't figure out what Shaggy is saying. I'm going to go back and reread his posts all at once and see if I can make some sense of what he is saying. The lack of paragraphs, caps and punctuation is not helping. And come on guy, the coding is not that hard. See all the little buttons up there. All you have to do is highlight the text you want coding around and hit the button. Preview is your friend.

Sorry for the coding trouble however I would say it is not just me who has atleast bit of trouble the 2 that voted for me had to do it twice cause of not getting the coding right. So yes I am the worst for having trouble but I would not say I am the only one. But I do apologize for the trouble, I am sorry. I would like to think I am starting to get a lot better at the coding, then right at the start. I am remebering more now to preview before I hit post.

Sorry for my poor grammar. Writing was never my strong point in school and I am trying to get better. I always have been better as a verbal then written person. Which may explain some of my confusing posts. So on this post and others I will try and remember to spell check before posting. That may help a bit.

So sorry for the trouble, I do appreciate the advice and I am taking it to heart. Thank you.

[storyteller0910]

OK, so I spent a lot of time re-reading last Night and this morning. It's been a busy Day, and I have a good feeling about it in general; there have been a lot of positions taken, and a ton of discussion, and in later Days we will gain much from analysis of the events of toDay. But I don't agree with this refrain of "oh, it's Day One, it's a crapshoot," which I think excuses lazy play and allows scummy play to be passed off as lazy play.

We can and should be as systematic in our approach to toDay's lynch as we will in the future.

I'm going to start with a look at the events of toDay since about Page 15, which is where I left off for TurkeyDay. Here are my notes, somewhat translated for ease of understanding:

sinjin at #420:
Makes a very strong argument against totallost, centering on the fact that totallost appears to be massaging the post count data to produce unnatural conclusions (discarding certain "lurkers" as targets for specious reasons, etc). Is this (totallost) Scum trying to generate a manipulated outcome? Or Town, with vague early twinges of suspicion/nonsuspicion, trying to find some remotely systematic way to make those twinges concrete?

Thought experiment: totallost is Scum. What is her goal? What is the desired outcome her manipulation of data? We, collectively, has been hesitant to pursue a pure lurker lynch historically and have given the lurker lynch idea little traction so far toDay; if total was genuinely trying to generate a manipulated lynch of miteymouse with her vote, she was playing a pretty big longshot.

What other outcome could she have been seeking? Anonymity, right? She's making a lurker vote because a vote like that is safe, unlikely to contribute to an actual lynch and thus unlikely to bring attention her way.

But in such a case, why bother throwing out data as sinjin observes her doing?

I conclude that while sinjin's argument is strong, I cannot find a potential Scum motivation underlying totallost's actions so far, and thus will not vote for her (at least, not without additional evidence).

------------------------

chucara
Mounts an assertive defense. I note principally, regarding chucara, that he seems to have received three votes rather quickly, all things considered. After I make this post, I'll go back and re-read the portion of the Day during which those votes were made, to see if any of the votes or discussion pings.

-------------------------

miteymouse at #444
Vague reciprocal suspicion of totallost, not coupled with a vote. Such a short post, but it raises a flag. It reads like someone who sees which way the wind is blowing - toward votes for totallost - but doesn't want to be perceived as the source of the wind, if that makes sense (no one wants to be perceived as the source of the wind, after all!). I get the feeling mitey was hoping for a bandwagon to develop on total, onto which mitey could then jump and refer back to #444 to say "see, I was suspicious of her all along."

shaggy does something quite similar at #454

----------------------------

total at #457:

That is not true! I never called her "scum"! I voted for a reason - I felt she was a lurker. She was around but never expressed an opinion.
When she did express an opinion (twice) I unvoted her...

I don't like you saying I called MiteyM scum - because I didn't!

I jump in here because I think it's worth noting; I have a bit of a struggle with this post, which seems like having it both ways to me. But I'm trying to interpret it through the filter of "strategic disagreement does not imply differing alignments." total, I think the problem here is that for many of us - well, for me, anyway, a vote is tantamount to calling a person Scum. It might not be a full-on, "I'm sure you're Scum" kind of thing, but a vote, properly applied, should always say: "here is the person I think is most likely (or, at minimum, more likely than most) to be Scum." This kind of vote is much easier to discuss and analyze in the future than weaker, "oh, I was just voting to encourage participation" stuff. Especially since, as I think I noted earlier in this Day, voting to encourage participation doesn't really make sense as a strategy, once you've announced it publicly.

shaggy at #459 is still suspcious of totallost, again with the vagueness. Essentially, shaggy's suspicion seems an outgrowth of total's lynch-the-lurker approach, but I don't quite follow his arguments here and elsewhere on the subject. Also, he smudges chucara here, via what I'm going to characterize as a blatant misrepresentation of chucara's arguments.

-----------------------

Cookies and Rugger go back and forth a while, and frankly I see no tells of any sort in this discussion, just two veterans who have played together a lot having a familiar argument. Either could be anything.

-------------------------

peeker at #480
Votes for totallost, no explanation given, seems enthusiastic about getting things started. Sort of the polar opposite of the miteymouse approach described above. Not sure what to make of this.

-------------------------

Cookies at #488
Votes for Mr. Special Ed, for what she characterizes as "me too snark" and also for his behavior in relation to molefan and myself. I find the Special Ed / molefan / shaggy / me situation interesting, simply because what began as a very modest exchange between Ed and I has been referenced repeatedly, such that a really minor conversation has been spun as one of the major storylines of the Day. I want to go back to the beginning and look at that whole thing more carefully before I discuss it further.

---------------------------

So, here's the thing. I've gone long enough without voting. Based on the read described above, I could vote for shaggy or miteymouse. totallost is floating around in the muddled middle, drifting a bit closer to the "Scum" side than others but not yet warranting a vote. I see no reason, yet, to vote for chucara or Mr. Special Ed.

Since my top two candidates are basically tied in my head, and since I have much investigation still to do, I'm going to

vote miteymouse

Something about that wishy-washy "I'm suspicious of totallost for vague reasons but I won't be voting for her or anything" post is just ooging me out.

-------------------------------

Next two steps, for me at least: investigation of the chucara votes and a fun retrospective of the conversation between me and Mr. Special Ed, including what came out of that conversation.

[Chucara]

After due consideration, I've decided to drop the lynch-a-lurker idea. I still think that the idea is decent, but it requires that the majority support it, and not just what appears to be me and totallost.

As for my suspicions, I agree with story that shaggy and miteymouse are the top candidates. However I think shaggy is the scummier of the two. I also think that a few people were a bit quick on the vote for me, but I didn't want to mention it, as I feel I might be biased on that matter.

I will vote shaggy because the cases he has been making seem more like slander than anything else, and this is not just on me, but his targets in general. However, what pings me even more is that his targets just happen to be those who are gathering the most votes, and to top it off, he even uses that as an excuse:

Though looking at the votes, I would say I am not the only one.

It seems like he is setting up a vote that will make it possible for him to get out of a lynch, as he is now also facing a bit of the limelight.

[Santo Rugger]

Dec 1, 2008 9:30:14 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

total at #457:

That is not true! I never called her "scum"! I voted for a reason - I felt she was a lurker. She was around but never expressed an opinion.
When she did express an opinion (twice) I unvoted her...

I don't like you saying I called MiteyM scum - because I didn't!

I jump in here because I think it's worth noting; I have a bit of a struggle with this post, which seems like having it both ways to me. But I'm trying to interpret it through the filter of "strategic disagreement does not imply differing alignments." total, I think the problem here is that for many of us - well, for me, anyway, a vote is tantamount to calling a person Scum. It might not be a full-on, "I'm sure you're Scum" kind of thing, but a vote, properly applied, should always say: "here is the person I think is most likely (or, at minimum, more likely than most) to be Scum." This kind of vote is much easier to discuss and analyze in the future than weaker, "oh, I was just voting to encourage participation" stuff. Especially since, as I think I noted earlier in this Day, voting to encourage participation doesn't really make sense as a strategy, once you've announced it publicly.

You bring up a good point, story. Total Lost's logic for voting for lurkers is because her theory is that scum are more likely to be in the lurker pool. The reason she voted for mmouse is because she was in that pool. Connecting the dots, Total very strongly implied that she thought mmouse was scum. story hit the nail on the head on this one; why would you vote for somebody you don't think is scum strongly enough to call them scum?

It goes back to my calling out of cookies for not saying what she means, saying I'm being difficult for not understanding and demanding an explanation. But, more importantly, she suggest that everybody get a vote in early, and yet still doesn't have a vote in. In short: WTF?

Speaking of, can we get a vote count?

[The Real FCOD]

Well, I have to get a vote on the table, and I have no suspicions, so I'm going to Vote DBI[/color]. My reason is that I don't remember her posting anything (even though it's showing 5 posts). Yes, this is a crappy reason, but it's the only one I have.

--FCOD

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 11:13:32 GMT -5 The Real FCOD said:

Well, I have to get a vote on the table, and I have no suspicions,--FCOD

Really? None? After 18 pages no one has pinged you even a little?

I have no problem with you voting DBI because she hasn't done anything memorable...but you have 0 real suspicion?

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 11:25:34 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Dec 1, 2008 11:13:32 GMT -5 The Real FCOD said:

Well, I have to get a vote on the table, and I have no suspicions,--FCOD

Really? None? After 18 pages no one has pinged you even a little?

I have no problem with you voting DBI because she hasn't done anything memorable...but you have 0 real suspicion?

Oh and, hi I am back! First up I will articulate my thoughts on chucara a little bit better than I had in my vote post.

Then I will do a proper read through and see what else I see. Back in a bit.

[shaggy]

Dec 1, 2008 9:52:42 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I will vote shaggy because the cases he has been making seem more like slander than anything else, and this is not just on me, but his targets in general. However, what pings me even more is that his targets just happen to be those who are gathering the most votes, and to top it off, he even uses that as an excuse:

Though looking at the votes, I would say I am not the only one.

It seems like he is setting up a vote that will make it possible for him to get out of a lynch, as he is now also facing a bit of the limelight.

Well I was not actually setting up anything, I was suspicious but unsure who was the most suspicious of the 3. But now I think i am ready to vote. Is it a OMGUS vote? No!

Chalking my suspicions up to basically a convenient excuse, to me is a real SCUMMY telling response. Where do suspicions and vote's come from? From our interpretation of peoples post's. So saying that my suspicions are a nice excuse based on other people's vote, to me is a SCUMMY response.

My suspicion's are based on post's not vote's. Which they are just that, interpretations and opinions. I am not trying to slander anyone. I am just interpreting what has been posted. Which is all anyone can do. Remember this is a game, my take on posts are nothing personal to you or anyone else. They are just that, my take on what is said. My opinion's maybe right and they maybe wrong, but they are just my opinion's.

The point is clearly my suspicion's, other people have too. Saying it is an excuse to me is a nice way to get those that have voted for or suspected one if the 3 I do, to turn there attention else where. In this case to me. So I Vote Chucara .

With that being said do I think I maybe lynched? yes. Am I OK with this, well I do not want to die but since the town comes first, if my being lynched helps the town, then by all means lynch away. Vote for me if that will help the town!!!!!!!!

[Total Ullz]

misterblockey has made 3 post.

The first being:

Nov 24, 2008 0:56:22 GMT -5 Mister Blockey said:

I.....
Am.......
So.............
Confused..........

Not much to say about that - we all feel confused at some point

The last is:

Nov 26, 2008 22:48:51 GMT -5 Mister Blockey said:

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.

This can happen to anybody. RL sometimes makes it hard to play mafia when you want to.

So what is pinging me is this:

Nov 24, 2008 13:29:50 GMT -5 Mister Blockey said:

whee long amounts of catching up

First of all, shaggy quote this post.


Then look at the big fancy line above for clarification.

Second:
I've been out of town and then catching up which is why I hadn't posted yet.

So

Molefan/shaggy: if it were still just molefan I'd still be saying it's a null tell best ignored. As far as saying no other vanilla town should claim, that wasn't going back on what he said earlier, rather he was merely pointing out that one vanilla town claim doesn't much hurt town, but multiple day one vanilla town claims do hurt the town. It's all a numbers game. This is not to say I take moleshag at its word, however I see no reason to lynch it.

I do however see what people are saying about Mr. Special Ed, what with the no random voting, and the weird smudges and all.

So Vote Mr. Special Ed, unless something better comes up.

First part is just helping Shaggy. Then there is a part about not wanting to lynch moleshag. Not much to say about that.

But the thing I don't like is the reason for voting Mr. Ed.

misterblockey sees "what people are saying"... What people? Saying where? and a vote that stands "unless something better comes up."

To me it looks like a vote for other peoples reasons that can be changed if "somethings" comes up. Not really taking the complete responsibility for his own vote is making me vote misterblockey

[Total Ullz]

Dec 1, 2008 11:12:16 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

You bring up a good point, story. Total Lost's logic for voting for lurkers is because her theory is that scum are more likely to be in the lurker pool. The reason she voted for mmouse is because she was in that pool. Connecting the dots, Total very strongly implied that she thought mmouse was scum. story hit the nail on the head on this one; why would you vote for somebody you don't think is scum strongly enough to call them scum?

I seem once again to not have made my theory understandable. I apologize.

The thing with the vote-a-lurker is that even if you hit a townie (witch could easily happen on Day 1) you hit an player that is lurking. And lurking might not be a scum-tell for sure - but it IS anti-town.

I would rather lose a lurker-town on Day 1 then a hey-I-have-a-new-idea-let's-try-this-strategy-Town.
I think that to often we lynch innovative-Town on Day 1.

[Idle Thoughts]

I'll be happy to give you a vote count when I'm online...which I wasn't until just now (and since about 10PM last night).


Chucara - 4 votes (Santo Rugger, NAF, Almost Human, shaggy)
Mr Special Ed - 3 votes (misterblockey, zeriel, Cookies)
shaggy - 3 votes (bufftabby, Mr Special Ed, Chucara)
Total Lost - 2 votes (sinjin, Peekercpa)
Peekercpa (DBI)
mmouse - 1 vote (KidV)
miteymouse - 1 vote (Storyteller)
Misterblockey - 1 vote (Total Lost)

[Trepa Mayfield]

Dec 1, 2008 8:38:58 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Nov 30, 2008 21:18:07 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

As for FCOD, he's admitted as much that he hasn't got a vanilla PM. At this point, however, this tells us very little. If there turn out to be a very high ratio of vanilla to power townies it might indict him, but beyond that, I don't see it coming into play. In fact, I think it was bad play to point it out in such an odd fashion. A direct accusation, followed by a direct rebuttal, might have been forgotten by scum due to the long day (after all, the scum are players too). If they hadn't pointed it out, FCOD would have been barely a blip to them. But because of the way it was handled, he's sure to factor into all of their nightly decisions. Not much we can do about it now, just something to file away for future games.

You make a good point, if it wasn't for the fact that you're completely wrong. Give me a break, do you really think an entire team of scum would have missed that the first time around? That's the kind of thing they're looking for. How many times have you seen a power role killed Night 1? Why do you think that is? And how would a direct accusation and a direct rebuttal have been forgotten any more than the original slip? What do you think a possible forgettable rebuttal would have been, other than the one given. Sounds to me like you're trying to smudge those involved in the conversation (especially NAF, who brought it into the limelight), with absolutely no basis.

Just curious--how likely is the scum to hit a powerful townie role (accounting for saturation of powers and such)?

And the memorable part wasn't what FCOD was saying, it was the way people were going 'should we reveal it or not'? Now, some of that is unavoidable, since we only have one thread to discuss everything and you have to get your ideas out somehow. Remember the whole issue in Recruiting with Pleonast and Drainbead*? BlaM knew he had plenty to incite because their sniping was so drawn out and memorable. I'm not saying they're (i.e. the people who picked up on FCOD's slip and debated on whether to reveal it or not and thus revealing it) scummy, I'm just saying that it was an anti-town maneuver. I'm also saying that the whole issue doesn't really tell us about anyone involved's alingment. The whole thing is more or less a non-issue for this game (except, as I said before, unless we find a whole bunch of vanillas and not many power roles).

*In Recruitment (warning, spoilers!), the scum could recruit every day, which meant the best way to find scum was by changes in behaivor. Pleonast, a bishop, was accused of this and claimed he had evidence, but wanted Drainbead, the main accusor, to reveal first. She wanted Pleonast to reveal first, and they argued back and forth. BlaM, a recruited scum, needed to distract everyone from an accusation on Darth Sensitve, the godfather, and kept encouraging them. It turned out they were fighting over a breadcrumb, though, since the evidence Pleo had was that he said he would "put a little faith in Hal" the day before he converted him into a priest.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Nov 25, 2008 16:11:32 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Anywho, anyone else have anything to say about Mr. Special Ed? I thought that discussion was tre-interesting.

oh yeah,

unvote

Why, exactly, did you unvote at that time? You had no other candidate, and your statement implies your vote was a discussion vote, but earlier you said it was a vote vote. So which is it?

Nov 25, 2008 19:08:53 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

But I didn't want it to be the elephant in the room that only our doc didn' pick up on. I clearly wasn't the only one to notice, just the only one to say something. And I want FCoD to know that we noticed. Otherwise the whole thing gets magic baggy in a bad way.

This...is a good point. I missed it first time through.

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 12:24:31 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

Nov 25, 2008 16:11:32 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Anywho, anyone else have anything to say about Mr. Special Ed? I thought that discussion was tre-interesting.

oh yeah,

unvote

Why, exactly, did you unvote at that time? You had no other candidate, and your statement implies your vote was a discussion vote, but earlier you said it was a vote vote. So which is it?

Why can't it have been both? Ed pinged me and I voted. I didn't have a lot of time to play in that first phase of the game, so I tried to pack as much into the 48 hours I had to work with as possible. This ment falling back on some old habbits that, while effective, are also rather detrimental to my survival in the long run. Note the batshit insane NAF disclaimer. But, sometimes that stuff really does help generate information when you are working in a vaccume.

So why I voted then unvoted (and really, I am glad you asked):

It was VERY early in the Day, Ed was scummy seeming (as I said when I voted) I liked his responses and was/am as interested in watching how other people react to a vote as I am in how the person I vote for reacts. It got things moving in a positive direction, but after a bit of discussion I no longer felt Ed was all that scummy, and frankly I don't feel that someone needs to have a vote out there at all times so I didn't move the vote to a different person and waited for enough data to pop up that there was something to anylize.

So, there you have it. Feel free to keep asking. I am working on my chucara post, but it is slow going (and it is looking like I might change my mind about him too. I am see-sawing on that one at the moment based on some of his post vote replies.)

[Santo Rugger]

Dec 1, 2008 12:14:14 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

Just curious--how likely is the scum to hit a powerful townie role (accounting for saturation of powers and such)?

One would have to know the saturation of said powers and such to make a definitive statement. But, in my experience, (especially from the recent FB games), scum is pretty good at pinpointing tells that power roles don't intend to give out. They're not usually as blatant as, "I'm not Vanilla Town", though.

And the memorable part wasn't what FCOD was saying, it was the way people were going 'should we reveal it or not'? Now, some of that is unavoidable, since we only have one thread to discuss everything and you have to get your ideas out somehow.

Well, I still disagree. NAF brought it up, and some people wanted to wait to see what others had to say about it. It was rather silly, I'll grant you that, because it's not likely scum are going to say, "Well, he's not scum, so he must be a power role." But, regardless, I fail to see how the length of the discussion is relevant to the scum picking up on it. I also find it funny that you feel the need to specifically state we only have one thread to discuss everything. Reminds me of everybody in the FB games including, "I'm town!" in every post. Honestly.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Dec 1, 2008 11:12:16 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Dec 1, 2008 9:30:14 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

total at #457:



I jump in here because I think it's worth noting; I have a bit of a struggle with this post, which seems like having it both ways to me. But I'm trying to interpret it through the filter of "strategic disagreement does not imply differing alignments." total, I think the problem here is that for many of us - well, for me, anyway, a vote is tantamount to calling a person Scum. It might not be a full-on, "I'm sure you're Scum" kind of thing, but a vote, properly applied, should always say: "here is the person I think is most likely (or, at minimum, more likely than most) to be Scum." This kind of vote is much easier to discuss and analyze in the future than weaker, "oh, I was just voting to encourage participation" stuff. Especially since, as I think I noted earlier in this Day, voting to encourage participation doesn't really make sense as a strategy, once you've announced it publicly.

You bring up a good point, story. Total Lost's logic for voting for lurkers is because her theory is that scum are more likely to be in the lurker pool. The reason she voted for mmouse is because she was in that pool. Connecting the dots, Total very strongly implied that she thought mmouse was scum. story hit the nail on the head on this one; why would you vote for somebody you don't think is scum strongly enough to call them scum?

It goes back to my calling out of cookies for not saying what she means, saying I'm being difficult for not understanding and demanding an explanation. But, more importantly, she suggest that everybody get a vote in early, and yet still doesn't have a vote in. In short: WTF?

Speaking of, can we get a vote count?

You wouldn't be skimming, would you Rugger?

[Santo Rugger]

Dec 1, 2008 12:52:55 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

You wouldn't be skimming, would you Rugger?

I forgot. I tend to remember concepts better than individual events. - WTF.

(That's a minus WTF. My bad.)

[Santo Rugger]

FWIW, these people don't have a vote on record. The list was taken from the original player list posted by Idle:

1. Pedescribe
4. MiteyMouse
6. Kat
8. hockeyguy
14. Hoopy Frood
18. misterblockey
19. MHaye
22. mmouse
23. Nanook

[The Real FCOD]

Dec 1, 2008 11:25:34 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Really? None? After 18 pages no one has pinged you even a little?

I have no problem with you voting DBI because she hasn't done anything memorable...but you have 0 real suspicion?

Everything that has happened so far toDay has pinged my suspicion, yet I feel that everything that has happened has had townie motivations behind it, so I am voting for someone that has not participated in toDay.

Does that make sense?

--FCOD

[KidVermicious]

Nov 24, 2008 14:40:07 GMT -5 mmouse9799 said:

Wow, this has been a hard thread to catch up with. It seems like each time I refresh, there's another page!

I'm mostly following along at work (as I'm sure others are), so if we can keep the fluff out of the game, I'd really appreciate it. I just hope that no one has a role a la Rugger in Batman.

I know Molefan made a quick claim in another game (Marvel?) which promptly got him lynched. So, he does have a precedent for jumping out as Town, but I'm inclined to take it as a null tell, otherwise it's just playing WIFOM with "he should know better" vs. "maybe it will be different this time, so it's a good cover." Koopa Troopa's are usually the enemy of Mario, but who knows how the character's names were assigned.

As far as the theories go, I think the towns over most of the games I've read have followed the same patterns, and I can certainly see what people are talking about. I've read games here and on the Dope, but I have no idea about what goes on in the FaceBook games.

I'm curious about how this super-long day will affect game play. I think it will be a bit difficult to determine lurkers and such over it as many people will be away for parts of it.

This is mmouse9979's single post in the game. From the 24th.

[sinjin]

hockyguy was replaced by squido who hasn't been seen since.

Hey Idle, you want to poke some of these guys who haven't been around.

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 13:30:21 GMT -5 The Real FCOD said:

Everything that has happened so far toDay has pinged my suspicion, yet I feel that everything that has happened has had townie motivations behind it, so I am voting for someone that has not participated in toDay.

Does that make sense?

--FCOD

Does indeed. Thank you muchly.

[bufftabby]

Heh, yeah IDLE, poke 'em good.

Seriously, non-participation drives me nuts. I got my heart ripped out and stomped on a week or so ago, and I'm still here. Maybe I'm not offering any groundbreaking insight or anything, but I'm at least *trying*. Of course, I think I would get the mafia DTs if I didn't get my fix.

[Santo Rugger]

Dec 1, 2008 13:51:30 GMT -5 bufftabby said:

I got my heart ripped out and stomped on a week or so ago, and I'm still here.

For the record, it wasn't me.

[Nanook]

Dec 1, 2008 12:14:14 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

And the memorable part wasn't what FCOD was saying, it was the way people were going 'should we reveal it or not'? Now, some of that is unavoidable, since we only have one thread to discuss everything and you have to get your ideas out somehow. Remember the whole issue in Recruiting with Pleonast and Drainbead*? BlaM knew he had plenty to incite because their sniping was so drawn out and memorable. I'm not saying they're (i.e. the people who picked up on FCOD's slip and debated on whether to reveal it or not and thus revealing it) scummy, I'm just saying that it was an anti-town maneuver. I'm also saying that the whole issue doesn't really tell us about anyone involved's alingment. The whole thing is more or less a non-issue for this game (except, as I said before, unless we find a whole bunch of vanillas and not many power roles).

As one of the people involved, I completely disagree with you on this matter. You're right to an extent that it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about people's alignment directly, but it certainly provides a data point for future reference. As someone who made a similar slip in a previous game, it can certainly be damning.

What do you mean by debating whether or not to reveal it and by doing so revealing it? We came right out and said basically that FCOD was not vanilla. The only part that didn't get revealed right away was what the specific slip was. And considering the nature of the slip, I believe scum would be likely to miss it if it wasn't pointed out.

I love the "I'm not saying they're scummy, but I'm going to use an example of a scum using this *wink wink nudge nudge*" part by the way. It really puts you over the top in my mind.

vote pedescribe[/color]

[Trepa Mayfield]

Dec 1, 2008 13:59:58 GMT -5 Nanook said:

Dec 1, 2008 12:14:14 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

And the memorable part wasn't what FCOD was saying, it was the way people were going 'should we reveal it or not'? Now, some of that is unavoidable, since we only have one thread to discuss everything and you have to get your ideas out somehow. Remember the whole issue in Recruiting with Pleonast and Drainbead*? BlaM knew he had plenty to incite because their sniping was so drawn out and memorable. I'm not saying they're (i.e. the people who picked up on FCOD's slip and debated on whether to reveal it or not and thus revealing it) scummy, I'm just saying that it was an anti-town maneuver. I'm also saying that the whole issue doesn't really tell us about anyone involved's alingment. The whole thing is more or less a non-issue for this game (except, as I said before, unless we find a whole bunch of vanillas and not many power roles).

As one of the people involved, I completely disagree with you on this matter. You're right to an extent that it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about people's alignment directly, but it certainly provides a data point for future reference. As someone who made a similar slip in a previous game, it can certainly be damning.

What do you mean by debating whether or not to reveal it and by doing so revealing it? We came right out and said basically that FCOD was not vanilla. The only part that didn't get revealed right away was what the specific slip was. And considering the nature of the slip, I believe scum would be likely to miss it if it wasn't pointed out.

I love the "I'm not saying they're scummy, but I'm going to use an example of a scum using this *wink wink nudge nudge*" part by the way. It really puts you over the top in my mind.

vote pedescribe

[/color][/quote]

Look, we just had this discussion. Anti-town is not the same thing as pro-scum. Bad play is not the same thing as scummy play. I'm not accusing you of being scum, just acting silly when you discussed it. On reread, it didn't happen exactly as I thought (which I addressed earlier), so it's even more of a non-issue that I was saying earlier. That was my point. If I wanted this to be an issue, I would have been using names, or analyzing possible power roles, or comparing statistical Idle likelyhood or whatever else. I didn't. I just said that the whole thing was handled badly. Ayyiyi.

Oh, wait a second...

Nov 24, 2008 12:37:22 GMT -5 Nanook said:

7 pages already? It sounds interesting until you realize 3 are fluff, 3 are about Molefan/Shaggy, and only 1 is any real discussion. I'm going to echo NAF here and request that the fluffy stuff either be saved for Night or moved to some other thread.

I'm not NAF Santo, but I have a comment based on some things he's said previously regarding it. (At least I think it was him. I might be conflating him with story, they both have good Mafia theory discussions in the spoilered threads for various games.) A lot of the discussion regarding Molefan focused on how anti-town his actions are, and there's no doubt that they are that. But that doesn't really tell us anything. Anti-town actions are bullshit, a null tell really. People on both sides of the scum/town dichotomy do anti-town things. What we need to look for and concentrate on are pro-scum things. Scum don't win by being anti-town, they win by being pro-scum. In light of that, was what Molefan did pro-scum? Not really. What does a scum Molefan(now Shaggy) gain from doing what he did? A whole lot of heat and a possible Day 1 lynch. That's not to say that Shaggy is Town, but that that one action tells us nothing concrete.

You already know that! And you said it first! In this thread! I think, maybe you're looking for an easy target. Y'all may call it OMGUS, but I'm gonna

Vote Nanook.

[Idle Thoughts]

To be fair, it's the FIRST day since Thanksgiving and the Thanksgiving weekend. So if people are not back by the end of today, major pokes will be going out.