Day One

[Idle Thoughts]

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)
Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook)
Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe)
DBI - 1 vote (Flyingblankofdoom)

[The Real FCOD]

You forgot my vote. FAIL!!

--FCOD

[Idle Thoughts]

Fixed!

[NAF1138]

I can't seem to get a hold on anything particularly tangeble. I think it mostly has to do with trying to do real analysis while at the same time trying to recover from a few days off of work. I just can't seem to make the connections or see the patterns that have to be there.

That being said, I actually am fairly clear on one thing.

For now at least, I am going to

unvote

There is too much grey area for me to want to help keep Chucara as the lynch leader right now. We still have several days in the Day and I think a better target will pop up.

I will not be voting for Shaggy today. That seems like an ill concieved lynch to me. Anyone who is voting for him/thinking of voting for him want to tell me why I am wrong about that?

[Idle Thoughts]

Chucara - 3 votes (Santo Rugger, 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)
Pedescribe - 1 vote (Nanook)
Nanook - 1 vote (Pedescribe)
DBI - 1 vote (Flyingblankofdoom)

[Chucara]

Dec 1, 2008 11:42:33 GMT -5 shaggy said:

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:


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!!!!!!!!

It's kinda difficult for me to think that this is not an OMGUS vote, with the timing of it and everything..

Anyway, the thing that bothers me isn't that you suspect me or the other two (previous) top candidates, but rather that you provide no reasons for it. You seem to be copying what other people are thinking. I haven't played enough games to be certain that this is a scum tell; if it isn't I'll consider moving my vote.

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding your "The point is clearly my suspicion's, other people have too.", but it seems like you again are defending your vote by saying that other people voted that way too.. I must say I don't like that one bit. Now, I don't know your playing style, and I hope you don't take the vote personally, but to me at least it just pings.

Dec 1, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

I will not be voting for Shaggy today. That seems like an ill concieved lynch to me. Anyone who is voting for him/thinking of voting for him want to tell me why I am wrong about that?

I am not nearly sure enough about Shaggy to try to persuade other to do anything other than what they feel is right. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is ill-conceived, if you have a strong feeling that it is?

I also think it is likely that a better target pops up, but I've elected to vote early even though I'm not 100% certain (will we ever be?) to give people a little time to respond to the charges.

Speaking of which, could you (shaggy) perhaps elaborate on why you think the three people you mentioned are suspicious (other than that other people think so too)?

[Trepa Mayfield]

Dec 1, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

I can't seem to get a hold on anything particularly tangeble. I think it mostly has to do with trying to do real analysis while at the same time trying to recover from a few days off of work. I just can't seem to make the connections or see the patterns that have to be there.

That being said, I actually am fairly clear on one thing.

For now at least, I am going to

unvote

There is too much grey area for me to want to help keep Chucara as the lynch leader right now. We still have several days in the Day and I think a better target will pop up.

You've had this vote for a while, and promised to explain it at least twice. Could you at least give your preliminary reasons?

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 17:44:53 GMT -5 Chucara said:

Dec 1, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

I will not be voting for Shaggy today. That seems like an ill concieved lynch to me. Anyone who is voting for him/thinking of voting for him want to tell me why I am wrong about that?

I am not nearly sure enough about Shaggy to try to persuade other to do anything other than what they feel is right. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is ill-conceived, if you have a strong feeling that it is?

Well, clearly, I have no problem with vote early vote often.

My problem with the shaggy lynch is molefan and the fact that shaggy is new to the game. To elaborate:

A) I don't think mole has balls that big, I really don't. I like moley a lot, but it takes some serious cajones to claim Day 1 if you are scum when previous experience should have taught you that it is a sure fire way to get yourself lynched. Then to sub out when it goes south...I don't see it. I think if mole was scum he would have ridden that wave and let it take him down.

That is a fairly substancial point a), but it all more or less ties together as one thought.

B) the newness of the shaggy man. We as a group tend to lust for the blood of the newbie. Invariably they will make a mistake and get pounced on. If they survive they are lauded as being more awesome than spiderman, if they don't...they usually don't come back and we forget all about them.

There is a slightly smaller part C that I almost hesitate to mention because it will likely get me killed but...

C) town is stupid as a group. This is more true on Day 1 then at any other time. Town is also lazy as a group. (again with the more true on Day 1) Individually we are all bright and dedicated to the game, but collectively it is easier to go for the guy who is not quite fitting in with the lockstep social norms of our gang. We do this all the time. So, C) shaggy's lynch is to easy and even if it nets us scum we aren't going to learn anything that will help us Day 2 and then we end up having Day 1 redux.

If you have more compelling reasons to want to lynch him than I have to not want to lynch him, let em fly I would like to hear them.

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 18:14:35 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

Dec 1, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

I can't seem to get a hold on anything particularly tangeble. I think it mostly has to do with trying to do real analysis while at the same time trying to recover from a few days off of work. I just can't seem to make the connections or see the patterns that have to be there.

That being said, I actually am fairly clear on one thing.

For now at least, I am going to

unvote

There is too much grey area for me to want to help keep Chucara as the lynch leader right now. We still have several days in the Day and I think a better target will pop up.

You've had this vote for a while, and promised to explain it at least twice. Could you at least give your preliminary reasons?

Yeah, a lot of it (as I said when I voted) was covered by Rugger, some more of it was covered by Almost Human with her vote. A lot of it had to do with gut that I was hoping to build on with some substance but, as I said in the post you quoted, I couldn't find any there there when I walked away for a few days and went back to it.

It was acutally his response to AH and his vote for shaggy that tilted me back away from keeping that vote.n His response rang townie, and the vote actually contradicted himself in a very slight way from one of his first posts. It was the bit of information that I was seesawing on, but eventually decided that it was more a townie move than a scummy one.

Also, let it be known that while I may have had that vote "for a while" in my actual game play time I had it for about 3 hours, less long than I was voting for Special Ed. I was gone Thursday until this morning remember?

And, pede, while I really like the attention...would you like to tell me why you are all up on me?

[Trepa Mayfield]

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

...no, not really. Could you explain a bit more?

[Merestil Haye]

I'm taking a break from reading Total Lost's posts to comment on this.

Dec 1, 2008 18:21:29 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Well, clearly, I have no problem with vote early vote often.

My problem with the shaggy lynch is molefan and the fact that shaggy is new to the game. To elaborate:

A) I don't think mole has balls that big, I really don't. I like moley a lot, but it takes some serious cajones to claim Day 1 if you are scum when previous experience should have taught you that it is a sure fire way to get yourself lynched. Then to sub out when it goes south...I don't see it. I think if mole was scum he would have ridden that wave and let it take him down.

That is a fairly substancial point a), but it all more or less ties together as one thought.

While I agree that Molefan was unlikely to repeat past mistakes (and claiming early when scum hasn't been good for him) claiming at all hasn't ever worked out for him. But he did it anyway. I don't think we can read anything from his claim.

B) the newness of the shaggy man. We as a group tend to lust for the blood of the newbie. Invariably they will make a mistake and get pounced on. If they survive they are lauded as being more awesome than spiderman, if they don't...they usually don't come back and we forget all about them.

The problem is that we treat new people as if, by some strange osmosis process, they learn our ways and culture. FCoD's Wiki is a help, but we need to get better at retaining new players. I'm willing to give Shaggy a bit of time to see how he plays. (And watch for scum slips).

There is a slightly smaller part C that I almost hesitate to mention because it will likely get me killed but...

C) town is stupid as a group. This is more true on Day 1 then at any other time. Town is also lazy as a group. (again with the more true on Day 1) Individually we are all bright and dedicated to the game, but collectively it is easier to go for the guy who is not quite fitting in with the lockstep social norms of our gang. We do this all the time. So, C) shaggy's lynch is to easy and even if it nets us scum we aren't going to learn anything that will help us Day 2 and then we end up having Day 1 redux.

If you have more compelling reasons to want to lynch him than I have to not want to lynch him, let em fly I would like to hear them.

You reminded me of a post Idle made a few months back.

Read it here. The linked episode did remind me of Mafia games sometime.

Mob justice too often prevails.

[NAF1138]

Dec 1, 2008 19:02:45 GMT -5 Merestil Haye said:

I'm taking a break from reading Total Lost's posts to comment on this.

Dec 1, 2008 18:21:29 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Well, clearly, I have no problem with vote early vote often.

My problem with the shaggy lynch is molefan and the fact that shaggy is new to the game. To elaborate:

A) I don't think mole has balls that big, I really don't. I like moley a lot, but it takes some serious cajones to claim Day 1 if you are scum when previous experience should have taught you that it is a sure fire way to get yourself lynched. Then to sub out when it goes south...I don't see it. I think if mole was scum he would have ridden that wave and let it take him down.

That is a fairly substancial point a), but it all more or less ties together as one thought.

While I agree that Molefan was unlikely to repeat past mistakes (and claiming early when scum hasn't been good for him) claiming at all hasn't ever worked out for him. But he did it anyway. I don't think we can read anything from his claim.

If he hadn't dropped out of the game, I would agree with you that it is more neutral than anything. I would still argue slightly more town since town tend to be a little less cautious on the whole, but only a little bit.

But if he was scum and dropped out because a claim was going south...I don't know. I just don't see that. He never struck me as that kind of guy, you know?

[NAF1138]

NETA: which doesn't mean that he ISN'T that kind of guy. It just means that shaggy has more points in his favor than against him in my eyes.

[Merestil Haye]

From where I sit, Molefan dropping out says nothing about his alignment and more about his frustration level. Getting killed out on the first day over and over again isn't fun.

[special]

We read The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street in reading class where I teach during the Science Fiction Genre, then we watch the episode.

What's odd is that I put that link into a Night thread or a jacuzzi thread on FB somewhere. I didn't realize others though it reminded them of Mafia too.

This reading is quite enjoyable, and I think I'm learning a great deal. For now, my vote stands. I do wish I had more insight into how each of you play.

[Nanook]

Dec 1, 2008 14:33:07 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

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

That is certainly OMGUS. You don't see a difference between "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything" and "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything, but this other time the scum did it"? To me there's a world of difference between the two.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Nov 26, 2008 20:55:55 GMT -5 Zeriel said:

In my experience, the "track the lurkers" thing in whatever its form has worked with VERY mixed success in most times it's tried, but who it's successful for depends a lot on whether town or scum initiates it--there are a lot of ways (including definitions of "lurker", "contributing", and "fluff") in which such a list can say within reasonable limits anything the list writer wants it to say.

Nov 28, 2008 21:42:16 GMT -5 Zeriel said:

Eh, back to the game a bit. I have been nursing some grumbles about Total Lost (I like lurker lists, they are like big neon signs that say "I'm much more likely to slip if I'm scum" to me). I haven't had inclination to go back and re-read to see if anything crystallizes around that.

Beyond that, I'm not really suspicious of anyone beyond my current vote, so there it is.

Nov 24, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5 Zeriel said:

Personally (and I know you didn't ask me), I'm more apt to punish lurking on Day One than I am to punish small anti-town behaviors (which is pretty much the only thing we have, collectively, on Mr. Special Ed).

The biggest problem with that here is that A) day one is going to be massively long, leaving a lot of opportunity for people to lurk in the fluff, and B) we have a lot of people not speaking up much right now.

As usual, WIFOM. What I DON'T want to see is people lynching molefan/shaggy due to his frustration-based play. Of course, I equally don't want to see people giving him a pass on that (I'm thinking of ArizonaTeach in Sekham, who melted down early on, was subbed out, and was scum).

Nov 24, 2008 14:01:44 GMT -5 Zeriel said:

I'm not voting yet because the Day has about a week left to run and there is plenty of time to allow my unfocused suspicions to redirect or coalesce--Special Ed is a blip, but only a blip.

Why don't you examine the lurkers in the meantime? Perhaps you could even make some sort of list of players who aren't yet contributing? *ducks*

Nov 24, 2008 9:02:28 GMT -5 Zeriel said:

Nov 24, 2008 5:45:25 GMT -5 Merestil Haye said:

This isn't rhetorical; when someone starts pointing fingers and slinging votes for lurkers, I like to check that we both use the word the same way before arguing.

Personally, I like letting people dig a nice deep hole when talking about lurkers -- this is an area we've (hell, I've) caught scum in more than once because it's easy to be inconsistent.

...I've been going through various people's posts. Which is why I asked about NAF, questioned FCOD, found that post by Nanook, etc.

Anyway.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Dec 1, 2008 20:26:51 GMT -5 Nanook said:

Dec 1, 2008 14:33:07 GMT -5 Trepa Mayfield said:

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

That is certainly OMGUS. You don't see a difference between "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything" and "This doesn't necessarily tell us anything, but this other time the scum did it"? To me there's a world of difference between the two.

I said it was an "anti town maneuver". It was bad play. A bad play IS anti-town. Why is that so hard to understand when you articulated it earlier yourself? You know. You just want to 'trap' me in a 'slip', and see if anyone else jumps on the train.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

So are you confused by Zeriel's posts, pede?

To me, they all pretty much boil down to his opinion being that the usefulness and success of Lurker Lists depends on the motivations of who is using them. When put into motion by scum, it is quite easy for them to be manipulated (sorta like a card trick where the victim is led to find their originally selected card via slight of hand or other scheme, all the while thinking they were making their own choices) to say whatever the poster wants them to say. Also, he thinks that scum manipulations and inconsistencies when discussing such lists are often a target-rich environment for scum slips, which is why he keeps jokingly urging other people to post their own lurker lists.

At least that is how I parse what he's said...

[peekercpa]

Well this whole list discussion is kind of interesting. I personally don't put a lot of weight on the lists themselves unless it is just objective data. But cookies is dead on when she observes that the way individuals handle subjective data can be telling. So, I can see value in everyone going through a process that has some subjectivity to it. Having said that, getting this group to achieve any level of participation in such an undertaking would be like herding cats.

I mean, we still have a significant portion of the group not even voting. And as close as the totals are it's setting up to be a potential last minute cluster. As has been, too often, not uncommon behavior. Ask Zeriel.

[Gir!]

So, in an effort to make things easy for myself (HA!), I was rereading the thread from the beginning and, on reaching page 8, noticed the following post from mmouse:

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.

It looks substantial at first glance, but the only somewhat meaningful portion (which I have underlined) had already been hashed out by...well...just about everyone. The following paragraph, where she mentions "patterns" could have been helpful, if she'd actually included the patterns that she says she's noticed from game to game and/or expanded on what she can see that people are talking about.

So, I noticed that she's got "Posts: 4" listed to the left, and clicked on her profile to bring up a list of her posts in another window, to see if she expanded on any of this in a later post, and she's got no other posts in Day One. I'm not normally an advocate of "lynch-the-lurker" (and I don't really class this as strictly "lurker-lynching") but it feels to me like an attempt to appear helpful and participatory (is that a word?) without saying anything at all. Especially since (meta-gaming alert) she shows as having been here today, and didn't even bother with a driveby post to excuse the absence.

Vote mmouse

[Høøpy Frøød]

Dec 1, 2008 21:47:17 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

So are you confused by Zeriel's posts, pede?

To me, they all pretty much boil down to his opinion being that the usefulness and success of Lurker Lists depends on the motivations of who is using them. When put into motion by scum, it is quite easy for them to be manipulated (sorta like a card trick where the victim is led to find their originally selected card via slight of hand or other scheme, all the while thinking they were making their own choices) to say whatever the poster wants them to say. Also, he thinks that scum manipulations and inconsistencies when discussing such lists are often a target-rich environment for scum slips, which is why he keeps jokingly urging other people to post their own lurker lists.

At least that is how I parse what he's said...

Yeah, that was pretty much my take on it as well. Zeriel wants to put pressure on people he sees as lurking, but he views "lurker lists" to be about as useful as "trust lists" at being any objective measure of anything.

And I've finally caught up/done a reread of the Day. Lots of information to sift through. I don't have any strong feelings about anything in particular, but I was struck by misterblockey's vote for Special Ed. Total Lost mentions the piggyback issue in her vote for him, but that alone isn't what's pinging me. (After all, I think every Mafia player has piggybacked at some point.) It's the fact that he's had this "me too" vote in place for a week, even after the specific issues have been addressed by Special Ed. If he doesn't think the explanations hold water, he should state as much. I know he's said he's busy, but he has posted since he made that vote, and after Special Ed explained himself.

So I'm going to vote misterblockey

[Trepa Mayfield]

Oh, okay. I just thought it was odd that Dude Mchasacockiel would mention lurkers so often.

Looked at Chucara, and the thing that jumped out at me was that he seemed very hesitant over his posts--unvoting quickly, only posting when he had a substantive case or provoked, and taking safe postions on hashed out topics. I'm familiar with this strategy, having employed it in Simpletown (as town), and in Conspiracy 2 (as scum). I don't think it means much of anything, as it's more of an approach to the game in general than a specific way to look townie/catch scum. I'm not seeing any other particular pinging thingys with him.

[KidVermicious]

Dec 1, 2008 22:33:14 GMT -5 Gir! said:

So, I noticed that she's got "Posts: 4" listed to the left, and clicked on her profile to bring up a list of her posts in another window, to see if she expanded on any of this in a later post, and she's got no other posts in Day One. I'm not normally an advocate of "lynch-the-lurker" (and I don't really class this as strictly "lurker-lynching") but it feels to me like an attempt to appear helpful and participatory (is that a word?) without saying anything at all. Especially since (meta-gaming alert) she shows as having been here today, and didn't even bother with a driveby post to excuse the absence.

Oh, dear. I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to find a lurker. It really is too bad that nobody else mentioned this earlier, what incredibly bad play that nobody tried to bring this to everybodies attention.

Twice.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Vote: everybodies

I don't care if it has been brought to his attention twice or not. That lurking sumbitch is going down.

[Gir!]

*throws a turtle shell at KidV*

[Chucara]

Dec 1, 2008 18:21:29 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

Dec 1, 2008 17:44:53 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I am not nearly sure enough about Shaggy to try to persuade other to do anything other than what they feel is right. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is ill-conceived, if you have a strong feeling that it is?

Well, clearly, I have no problem with vote early vote often.

My problem with the shaggy lynch is molefan and the fact that shaggy is new to the game. To elaborate:

A) I don't think mole has balls that big, I really don't. I like moley a lot, but it takes some serious cajones to claim Day 1 if you are scum when previous experience should have taught you that it is a sure fire way to get yourself lynched. Then to sub out when it goes south...I don't see it. I think if mole was scum he would have ridden that wave and let it take him down.

You're right *sigh* I just can't imagine molefan doing that claim as scum. I think shaggy latest plays have been less than optimal, and I still think he should still consider given a reason for his three way smudge and his vote for me. "Other people have the same suspicion" just doesn't fly with me.

I know this is like the fourth time, but I'll unvote shaggy

This time I will wait a while before voting, as I don't want to change it again too soon. This is not a strategy in any way, I just really don't know who to vote for.

[Almost Human]

I was holding onto my vote till I found something better to put it on but I haven't yet.

Chucara did explain himself well and what seemed like a decent case against him at the time has mostly been explained away.

So unvote chucara. I'm at work right now but I'll have a proper reread afterwards and make a vote later on today.

shaggy sounds scummy but I think part of that's an inability to make himself clear. Other than him though I'm not really 'feeling' anything yet so hopefully a reread will help.

[Høøpy Frøød]

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

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.

Actually, it only requires the majority to support it if it truly is going to end up in a lynch. As a voting strategy itself, it's not a bad one...but it's not a great one either. I view it as a nice default strategy when you don't feel you have much else to go on.

My vote right now sits on someone who could be described as a lurker. It's also possible he's been busy. But I don't like the fact that his vote is still on someone who has addressed the reasons for which that vote was placed with no counterargument as to why this is so. I also can't tell when blockey was last here, since his profile shows him being logged in for a very long time.

But if I weren't voting blockey, I'd probably be voting mmouse9799. Because she is lurking. She's been logging onto the board since she last posted (the last login was yesterday afternoon), but she hasn't said anything since the post that Kat quoted (which was posted over a week ago).

[Høøpy Frøød]

Something I've been wondering about.

You win when all the people who are aligned with Scum are dead.

This is the town win condition. Notice that there is no mention of 3rd parties in there. I see three possibilities, and I'll order them in most-likely to least likely:

1) We have 3rd parties, but they are similar to the non-serial killer types in Batman. Town can win by defeating all scum, and these third parties being alive has no bearing on that win. (Provided, of course, that the 3rd parties haven't achieved their own win conditions yet.)

2) There are no 3rd parties. Everybody is town or scum.

3) Idle goofed. (Not really considering that one.)

The main issue I see here is the presence of a serial killer. Usually, the serial killer has to die before any other side can win. However, there is no indication of this in our win condition. So if we have no serial killer, what is going to prevent this game from stretching out a long time if we don't have extra kills somewhere? In the game I'm designing with Rysto and NAF, the subject of game length has come up. I know NAF prefers a game to last not much beyond 8 cycles, because people began to get burned out at that point.

Assuming the figure of 5 scum which has been bandied about, if everyone is town or scum with no extra kills, the shortest this game can be is 5 Days with perfect lynching. (Not bloody likely.) With only town being lynched (also not very likely), this game is over in 8 Days.

However, let's say in those 8 Days, we've lynched 4 scum. By Dusk of Day 8, we will have 4 dead scum, and 11 dead townies. This leaves 10 people alive, only one of which is scum. This is four more Days before lylo. And this is assuming no night kill gets blocked.

With this many people, I find it hard to believe that there isn't something out there that speeds up the kill rate. (In Batman, we had 2 serial killers. In Marvel, scum had the plague and a percent chance of extra kill, and PFK had a power drainer. Town also had a Blocker with a 25% vig chance.)

If there are only 5 scum and no SK, I would expect all scum to have powers, and those powers are going to be doozies.

Thoughts?