|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:38:27 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 24, 2008 11:38:27 GMT -5
KID: Am I missing something cause you said something along the lines of the only fib maybe that I am town....are you talking about a past game here, cause other wise to me it screams you just came right out and said your SCUM? ?.... No, sorry, you're missing some history (which isn't your fault - I need to remember that we've got new faces around). Yes, thats in reference to the previous game, Skrull Planet, in which I was scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:39:07 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Nov 24, 2008 11:39:07 GMT -5
Well that was a fun couple of pages of reading.
Mole, I am really sorry to see you go, and hope you are still following the game and will come back for another one.
Who exactly called Mole's claim suspicious again? It's was hard to see the forest for the fluff in the last SIX PAGES! I know it's Day One, but we didn't even start trying until this morning. I don't mind a little fluff here and there, but if we can keep it mostly to the Night threads that would be good.
Oh yeah and
vote Mr. Special Ed
for claiming that mole's claim was even remotely suspicious and then smudging the hell out of story for trying to call town on it's predictable bullshit. F.oD, you wanted a reason for a non random vote, there you go.
Someone complained that I was being too calm and helpful in the last game (and that they missed the raving lunatic NAF.) I won't have a whole lot of time toDay (as I said in my last post) so Raving Lunatic NAF TM is back in a one Day only special apperance. Congrats for catching his ire Ed.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:39:25 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Nov 24, 2008 11:39:25 GMT -5
I dunno about that, Cookies. You're right in that the decision to tell half-truths as town is quite subjective, as is the utilization of lynching said liars. However, at the end of the Day, if there's not a damn good explanation for the lie, I know where my vote is going to be.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:39:36 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Nov 24, 2008 11:39:36 GMT -5
Within a post or two, the conflicting perspectives on random votes between Hoopy and FlyingFooOfDoom (I'm just going to start calling you that, if you don't mind...) gave me a chuckle. LOL, I know. Flying[Anything]OfDoom will catch my attention, but if you don't want to type all that FCOD is fine. Allow me to summarize every Day One: "I'm using random.org" "Random voting is a scum tell!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "Fucking shit you're whiny bitches. Let's get some beer and drink 'til we can't think. Woot the fucking woot. Or something." "I'm voting for X because he smells like tofu." "I'm voting for Top Dog!" "Scum love tofu!! FOS FOS FOS!!!!" "Oh crap you guys there's 10 minutes left and there are only 3 votes!" [Town lynches X, the Doctor] --FCOD What about the "should we mass role claim?" and "x is good/x is bad but ARE THEY GOOD/BAD in this game?" parts?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:42:03 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on Nov 24, 2008 11:42:03 GMT -5
Has anyone considered the possibility that molefan/shaggy was/is a town power role and is claiming vanilla early to avoid being targetted by scum? That is a pro-town move in my opinion.. However, it does have some drawbacks - namely that he could be caught in the lie by a town investigator and lynched. *shrug* I don't know. I think molefan is sincerely annoyed by being lynched early last game. (As am I now that I read the spoiler board.. that could've been an interesting role later in the game) In either case, I don't think shaggy should reclaim anything in response to this post. No I didn't consider that possibility because by claiming at all he directed a great deal of attention onto himself that he wouldn't have had otherwise. I suppose it is possible but I don't think it's likely.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 11:44:00 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 24, 2008 11:44:00 GMT -5
Allow me to summarize every Day One: "I'm using random.org" "Random voting is a scum tell!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "Fucking shit you're whiny bitches. Let's get some beer and drink 'til we can't think. Woot the fucking woot. Or something." "I'm voting for X because he smells like tofu." "I'm voting for Top Dog!" "Scum love tofu!! FOS FOS FOS!!!!" "Oh crap you guys there's 10 minutes left and there are only 3 votes!" [Town lynches X, the Doctor] --FCOD *snerk* Quoted for truth.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:17:48 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Nov 24, 2008 12:17:48 GMT -5
Hey NAF, I know you've put a lot of time lately into thinking about strategies that the Town should invoke when hunting scum. I know you've said a lot about how the current approach upsets you. Have you come to any solid conclusions about a path forward yet?
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:26:50 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Nov 24, 2008 12:26:50 GMT -5
Vote count
Mr Special Ed - 1 vote (NAF)
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:30:44 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 12:30:44 GMT -5
ok [/KID] that makes sence now, as I said i did think I was mearly missing something, seeing as I have not played in past games.
Remember I have not played on this board before so I am sorry but it is a little hard for me to get use to the way the quote thing works, so I find it at times hard to follow. I am sorry for not getting that it was me that was ready to be voted for, and that the trouble with names was for the thread about the game before the game started. which how do i find that thread? I am having a hard time finding it? which may explain alot.
After rereading again for the 3rd or 4th time I am starting to get a better handle for it but as i said I find it a little hard for me to follow and still am having trouble figureing out the colour thing. I write the name and then highlight it, choose the colour but nothing happens, also tried selecting the colour and then writting the name after and still does not come up coloured, I am a little confused? So sorry
As for the random vote, it does seem odd to me, cause then it is like voting with out much thought put into it. Which if we vote with no thought put into it, then that to me only helps the SCUM out.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:37:22 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Nov 24, 2008 12:37:22 GMT -5
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.
NAF's comment on Special Ed is interesting. I'd like to see his response to it.
FCOD, I disagree that a random vote is better than no vote at the end of the Day. You claim if you random vote you'll still have to provide a reason for it later. But that doesn't mean anything. You get called on it, you come back and say it was random, I've got nothing here. That doesn't provide ANYTHING for information, whereas a lack of vote in the same situation requires you to explain why you didn't feel anyone was scummy enough to vote for. Right now I'm leaning towards voting you, not because I disagree with your strategy(which I do), but because I can very definately see a pro-scum reason for wanting to have a random vote at Day end.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:46:42 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Nov 24, 2008 12:46:42 GMT -5
No worries, shaggy. We're all willing to help you out; I can see how it would be intimidating if you don't have any html experience.
When coding in html, we have what are called flags. They start like this <flag> and end like this </flag>. If you don't have the end flag, the Hyper Text Markup Language will not recognize it as a flag; it will think it is plain text. On this board, though, the flag starts like this [flag], and ends like this [/flag]. I'm not sure. So, the tag for color is . Then we write whatever we want to go in between the colors, and close the flag with the [ \ color] flag (I put the slash backwards so you can still see the code.
So, when you pick a new color, it will put the opening and closing flags at the end of what you've written. Simply type between the flags, or drag the flags where they need to be by highlighting them, clicking and holding your mouse button, and dragging them where they need to be.
If you click on the "Reply" button by every post, it will take you to an advanced screen where all this will become a bit more clear than in the quick reply box.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:48:08 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Nov 24, 2008 12:48:08 GMT -5
For reference, will bold, will italicize. will make the font bigger or smaller (2 is what you're seeing right now). will write superscript and will write subscript. That's all I regularly use, plus the color.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 12:58:50 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Nov 24, 2008 12:58:50 GMT -5
Hey NAF, I know you've put a lot of time lately into thinking about strategies that the Town should invoke when hunting scum. I know you've said a lot about how the current approach upsets you. Have you come to any solid conclusions about a path forward yet? Well, kinda, but my method has never really been all that popular. Ok, warning, long mafia theory post ahead. We can take the discussion out of the game if anyone really wants to have a serious talk with me about it, but after this post you will know where I am coming from and either agree with me or not. I am not really interested in arguing the merits of my theoris in game though. Again, I am more than happy to talk about any of them out of the game thread. First, town has to be willing to punish wantonly anti-town play in the early game without fear that they might lynch town. Odds are you are going to lynch town on Day 1, and they aren't much better on Day 2. You have to let the fear of early mis lynches go and simply get people to start behaving as pro town as they can, this is so you eliminate a lot of confusing data. When people stop intentionally doing Anti-town shit, the stuff that pops up is easier to manage. It also provides a baseline for vote and behavior analysis. The first couple of lynches are more informational than anything anyway, and early scum lynches are sometimes more of net neutral than anything. (More true of early vanilla scum lynches than other types) Second, you have to recognize that not every anti-town action is going to be pro scum, and that every single player in the game will take anti-town actions at some point in time. The only player I have ever seen fail to ever take an anti town position was zuma in YSI, and only in YSI. Right now I would say that roughly everything posted in the first 4 or so pages of the game has been anti-town. We are not ALL scum, and this is not an atypical start to a game. Third, you have to recognize that not all pro scum actions will be anti-town. This is where things start to get tricky, but as a general rule we have actually been fairly good at not keeping people alive simply because they are action pro-town. You did lynch Pollux in the last game, and that was good. You recognized that even though he played pro-town he was also playing pro-scum, and the pro-scumminess of it all became obvious as endgame came near. I firmly believe that Pollux's death in the last game was a sterling example of what I have always said, if you keep scum talking long enough they will have to out themselves. It is not possible for scum to play 100% pro town and win. So promote pro-town behavior but recognize that after about Day 2 you are not looking for people who are acting in an anti town fashion, but rather people who are behaving in a pro-scum fashion. This is harder to see, but you can actually eliminate people from lynch contention as the game wears on because their behavior has been consistently anti-scum. Scum can not play anti scum in the long run. If they do they lose the game. This is one of the reasons why I think town should do it's best to quash lurkers and to smack down fluff talkers early on. Fluff and quiet are a scum's best friends. But if you force real analyisis early and often from players the scum can not hide, because eventually they will have to fudge something in order not to hand the game to town, because scum can not play anti scum long term. The trick is to be able to seperate anti-town but also anti-scum, from anti-town but pro scum. Anti-town behavior gives scum a good place to hide. It is harder (but not impossible) to be pro-scum and pro-town. And it is my feeling that it is impossible to be pro-scum and pro-town long term and stay hidden. 1As for how you tell anti-town from pro-scum, well, there is no one magic bullet sure fire method, and some of it comes down to "I now it when I see it" for me. But at the very least, you always want to ask yourself "if I were scum, why would I do that?" Because, as those of us who have been scum frequently know, it is not possible to post anything as scum without thinking about how it will make you look. You can not post pure, and eveything will have some sort of ulterior motive, even if that motive is only to look townie. So, from the above what I think we as players need is a system that changes with the progression of the game and actually analyzes both raw data as well as behavior. (Because one should not ignore the fact that raw data is also good at scum catching) Town should be working toward town confirmation as much as working toward scum catching. Sort of working from both sides and meeting in the middle. And then, lastly, town should not ever rely on one single action to create a lynch. Good unimpeachable data (from say, a cop) can be used, but never behavior. It is too hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on the basis of a single action. But when you have multiple pro-scum actions, as well as supporting raw data then you have a good lynch. 1. so if multiple someones start telling you that your behavior is anti-town, for god sakes knock off that behavior or it WILL be in the towns best interest to lynch you, regardless of your alignment. Sometimes it's good to lynch town for information, and sometimes it's good to lynch possible town to keep the record readable. Not a popular sentiment, but a true one.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:00:07 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Nov 24, 2008 13:00:07 GMT -5
[nitpick]They're called tags, not flags ;D[/nitpick]
Just because someone says it's a random vote doesn't mean it is. The point is, having a vote on record is a vote on record, regardless of the reasoning behind that vote. You can say, "I voted randomly," or, "I voted because he looked at me funny," or, "I just felt suspicious about her," but they're all the same to me. Having no vote is more suspicious, because there's no reason NOT to vote on Day One.
Like I said, it hasn't come down to a random vote for me yet, since someone always does something suspicious before the first Dusk.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:01:49 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 13:01:49 GMT -5
yeah i have no html experience but i think i get it. thanks [Santo/Black]
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:06:13 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 13:06:13 GMT -5
ok that did not work, but I think i am on the right track. lets try this. Thanks Santo
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:07:08 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Nov 24, 2008 13:07:08 GMT -5
Here are some examples for you, shaggy (replace each < with a [ and each > with a ]):
<color=blue>Text to be blue</color> <size=3>Bigger text</size> <b>Bolded text</b> <i>Italic text</i>
You also can combine them, like this:
<color=blue><b>Bold, blue text</b></color>
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:08:09 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Nov 24, 2008 13:08:09 GMT -5
NETA: Text is black by default, you want the <b> tag for bold (remember, it's actually with [ and ] not < and >).
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:10:21 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 24, 2008 13:10:21 GMT -5
Pro- and anti- town/scum actions are frequently WIFOM and null-tells, until there are enough by any one player that they can be looked at in aggregate. I find it more valuable to look to possible motivations behind the action, and evaluate a vote based on (my guessing at) the probability of the various motivations. Also easier when there are multiple data points to be looked at in aggregate, of course.
Anybody offering an unprovoked Day One claim will of course be looked at harder than anybody else, precisely because it's Day One, a claim is a huge data point, and there's not much else to look at. That doesn't mean we should be addressing any more suspicion to that player than anybody else, it just means that we've got something to hang that suspicion on.
In general, I think an unprovoked Day One claim is poor play, but poor play does not a scum player make. Shaggy is going to have to deal with the increased hit, thats the price you pay when you sub, but Molefans Day One claim should not be regarded as scummy/not scummy until we've got something else to look at it with.
***
I'm a big fan of voting for lurkers when there's nothing else to go on (lurker defined by me anyway as a player whose participation in the thread is sub-par). We catch scum by evaluating their posts, and scum would rather not post at all if they can help it.
Barring other developments, I plan to begin voting for lurky behavior in the next couple days.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:11:10 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 13:11:10 GMT -5
forgot i assume there should be a space between them, such as shaggy
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:14:00 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 13:14:00 GMT -5
oh I no why, I am so dumb, it's black to start with. lets see if i got it, shaggy
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:15:10 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Nov 24, 2008 13:15:10 GMT -5
NAF, get out of my head. This is a restricted wavelength.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:17:29 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Nov 24, 2008 13:17:29 GMT -5
NAF, get out of my head. This is a restricted wavelength. NO! If I stay out of other players heads I will never find scum! That being said, what do you think about the famous special ed? Not enough of a data point this early in the game and lurkers are better? I want to talk about more than just theory.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:24:30 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 24, 2008 13:24:30 GMT -5
now that I have showed how computer illiterate I am, back to the game itself.
Personally I am for the lurkers. cause those that have posted. I am thinking i really need more time to know all of your posting styles. what maybe me seeing something is just not use to that style of play. also to help I am going for the next hour or so and reread old games to help me out.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Nov 24, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5
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).
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:29:50 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Nov 24, 2008 13:29:50 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 13:35:22 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Nov 24, 2008 13:35:22 GMT -5
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). Well and that's the thing isn't it? No one should be convicted or pardoned based on a single action. We do that entirely too often. Does this conflict with my vote for Ed? Maybe. But a vote isn't a lynch, and discussion of actual player behavior is more interesting than discussion of the absence of behavior. Right now I want to see what he has to say, and I am wondering why I am the only person so far toDay who has been willing to vote. I am also wondering who all you out there who want to punish lurker are willing to call out as lurkers? It don't mean a thing if you don't call out someone to swing. (my apologies for the forced joke in the previous sentence. I have not good excuse, I like bad jokes.)
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 14:01:44 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Nov 24, 2008 14:01:44 GMT -5
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*
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 14:02:19 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Nov 24, 2008 14:02:19 GMT -5
See, now I'm kinda tempted to chime in with that infamous third vote for Mr. Ed. I would not feel so inclined if he had either been extremely suspicious of Moley (alone), or if he had misinterpreted/misrepresented/smeared Story for his reaction to the Moley issue (alone). But together, it is enough to be a relatively compelling Day 1 case.
|
|
|
Day One
Nov 24, 2008 14:05:43 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Nov 24, 2008 14:05:43 GMT -5
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* *throws traditional mid Day 1 pie at Z* It was a good list.
|
|