Day One

[Høøpy Frøød]

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

------------- Vote tracking ----------------
Like the last game, I will keep a record of votes, players and claims on the website in my profile. It will be updated once this day is over, or sooner if I get around to it. Aside from the usual information, I'll try to extract some voting patterns. Truth be told, they didn't really do much good last game, so if anyone has any ideas on how to improve it, I'd be happy to know.

One thing you can consider is ordinal tracking of votes and unvotes, similar to what Hal did on his web page during Batman. Unfortunately, I don't recall the URL to that (and don't even know if it's still up) so I can't direct you to an example.

[Høøpy Frøød]

NETA: I did visit his sirblah page, but didn't see any mafia links.

[storyteller0910]

Nov 24, 2008 19:14:10 GMT -5 Gir! said:

Chucara, could you clarify why you think that a Pro-Town Investigator finding out shaggy is a Town Power Role would even reveal it, much less let it lead to a lynch?

I'm not Chucara, but given his experiences and role in our game, I can see one type of Pro-Town investigator that you've left out of your analysis, that could easily catch shaggy in a lie without being able to confirm shaggy's alignment - a type of investigator that probably would have occurred pretty naturally to Chucara.

Meanwhile, Mister Special Ed, I had a question that understandably enough got lost in the shuffle: you said that the arrival of shaggy "changes things" with regard to the ongoing discussion of molefan/shag's alignment. Can you clarify? What has changed? Is there a reason that someone who was suspicious of molefan should not now be equally suspicious of shaggy?

[Gir!]

Gah! You're right, and I'm an idiot. *pounds head on table*

I think it's because I tend to consider Watchers and Trackers separately than "Investigators" for some reason.

[special]

Nov 24, 2008 19:32:43 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

Nov 24, 2008 19:14:10 GMT -5 Gir! said:

Chucara, could you clarify why you think that a Pro-Town Investigator finding out shaggy is a Town Power Role would even reveal it, much less let it lead to a lynch?

I'm not Chucara, but given his experiences and role in our game, I can see one type of Pro-Town investigator that you've left out of your analysis, that could easily catch shaggy in a lie without being able to confirm shaggy's alignment - a type of investigator that probably would have occurred pretty naturally to Chucara.

Meanwhile, Mister Special Ed, I had a question that understandably enough got lost in the shuffle: you said that the arrival of shaggy "changes things" with regard to the ongoing discussion of molefan/shag's alignment. Can you clarify? What has changed? Is there a reason that someone who was suspicious of molefan should not now be equally suspicious of shaggy?

Story what has changed is that mole is no longer playing and shaggy is. Does it change the suspicion level of the character? Not in the least.

Does it change the likelihood that the character will continue to play in an anti-town fashion? I certainly hope so.

I hate first Day vanilla claims so much that I'm willing to lynch that person on Day 1, because then they won't be around to play their own odd game against the rest of the Town for the duration of the game.

[storyteller0910]

Fair enough.

[MiteyMouse]

Hi everyone! I'm here and reading. I will be back to post my thoughts soon!

[sinjin]

Nov 24, 2008 19:32:43 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

Nov 24, 2008 19:14:10 GMT -5 Gir! said:

Chucara, could you clarify why you think that a Pro-Town Investigator finding out shaggy is a Town Power Role would even reveal it, much less let it lead to a lynch?

I'm not Chucara, but given his experiences and role in our game, I can see one type of Pro-Town investigator that you've left out of your analysis, that could easily catch shaggy in a lie without being able to confirm shaggy's alignment - a type of investigator that probably would have occurred pretty naturally to Chucara.

Meanwhile, Mister Special Ed, I had a question that understandably enough got lost in the shuffle: you said that the arrival of shaggy "changes things" with regard to the ongoing discussion of molefan/shag's alignment. Can you clarify? What has changed? Is there a reason that someone who was suspicious of molefan should not now be equally suspicious of shaggy?

Two points:

1) When referring to past games can you be a little more explicit. Not all of us have followed them closely. Is it really too tough to tell the rest of us what type of pro-town investigator would catch Chucara in a lie? I know Kat piped right in and answered, but, when reading your post before I got to Kat's it just annoyed me. Like, now I have to go back to the last game and figure out what you mean, bleh.

2) Not speaking for Mr. Ed, but, moley was pissing a lot of people off by his very attitude. It started with the role claim then escalated with his pugnacious attitude. Shaggy comes in with a tainted slate, but don't we have to at least give him a chance? Jeez, we even gave Blam? a bit of a honeymoon when he subbed for zuma, who claimed to be Batman and went out in a turgid pile of angst.

FTR I am still suspicious of shaggy/mole, I can't get past the role miss-spelling thing. But hell, it's day one, I'm suspicious of all of you.

[KidVermicious]

Nov 24, 2008 19:39:54 GMT -5 Gir! said:

Gah! You're right, and I'm an idiot. *pounds head on table*

I think it's because I tend to consider Watchers and Trackers separately than "Investigators" for some reason.

Speaking of types of investigators that should come naturally to certain people... *g*

[MiteyMouse]

Ok, I have read and have a few thoughts.
Sp Ed I don't see as palying all that Scummy at this point. The set up thing could raise an eyebrow but, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point in the game....though, I would love to hear his reasoning on this.
Peek to be honest, I'm not really sure how to take you at this point.
TL and Chu those votes hurt...hehehe! Sorry for not talking too much. I'm feeling pretty overwhelmed here but, I am trying to wrap my head around things here.
Mole/Shaggy I have a bit of a bias as I am married to the sub in here. I think the claim was unfortunate but, I am willing to give Shaggy a chance here.
I'm going to do a reread and hopefully get some more info.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Do NOT get me started on the use of "investigator"....

[sinjin]

Nov 24, 2008 20:59:52 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

Do NOT get me started on the use of "investigator"....

Well wouldn't that really be the use of "the" investigator vs "a" investigator.

For those playing along at home this was a big deal in the Firefly game. Cookies was almost lynched by article. Of course she did turn out to be scum in the end. ;D

[peekercpa]

Ok, a couple of observations. I truly do belive that more is more. Getting folks to post gives more information and potential for catching inconsistencies that can provide avenues for investigation and discussion. FCS in Recruitment I think it was Darth's (I believe) night time fluff post was his undoing. Every post has value even if it is marginally incremental.

So for those who want to turn down the volume I say pfffffft. I just dom't agree. I mean we'll still be friends at the end of the day but I don't think my style of play is significantly any more anti town than lurking.

Which leads to the whole LTL discussion. As a newb I thought that this was a great idea. As I have gotten a little more time under my belt I think my position has changed to Vote the lurker and then if they don't respond stretch 'em. For instance if you want Nanook to post. Vote him and he typically pops right in. Usually with something insightful and contributory. Does that make him scum or anti - town. Absolutely not, just the way he plays the game from my perspective.

Lastly Moley. Last game KidV came after me for being claimed miller. He then backed off and I called him on it. I then let it go. In the spoiled thread story made some sort of comment that I was dead on. At this point in the game I am sure that UATU thought that the town had lost its collective mind. Me coming up with correct reasoning probably pushed him over the edge. So I know moley is gone with his vanilla claim and his assertion/suggestion that no other vanillas claim. Just feels squirrelly.

But as others have pointed out. We've got time, so let's wait and see what pops up (and for Og's sake let's hope it doesn't have anything to do with santo's anatomy).

Didn't think I would get through a whole post without making it "semi".

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Holy acronym soup, Batman!

UATU?

[Zeriel]

UATU was story's name as moderator of Skrull Planet, Cookies.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Leave it to me to aim for an acronym in there and not hit one...

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 24, 2008 20:59:52 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

Do NOT get me started on the use of "investigator"....

Don't you mean detective? ;D

I wrote up a post at work describing what I thought of the whole story / SpEd debacle. It's quite different than what either of the participants had to say on the matter. I'm not going to rewrite it tonight, so I'll post it in the morning.

[bufftabby]

I don't really get the Mr. Special Ed debacle. I actually agreed with his analysis that story could have been setting up an "I told you so" Townie-cred-gaining situation. I am seeing both story and Mr's actions as null tells.

On shaggymole: I'm seeing the early claim as a null tell as well. Sure, it's a data point. But I think that's it. It sucks for shaggy to have to sub in with heat already on him, for an action that seems pretty null to me at this point.

In other words, I got nothin' yet. [Bit o'fluff]'Cept mad love for my brotha peek![/BoF]

(No, I'm not breadcrumbing mason or anything--i'm responding to the previous discussion of peek's posting style.)

[Total Ullz]

Nov 24, 2008 12:58:50 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

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.

I would really like that. Maybe when this game is over so we don't get it mixed up???

Nov 24, 2008 12:58:50 GMT -5 NAF1138 said:

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.

I'm not trying to push you into a discussion of the theory in it self - but I thought we might talk about what we see as anti-town behavior. I have a feeling not everyone agrees on what anti-town is...

And I have a feeling that this is a part of the tension between Mole and me and also between Story and Mr. Special

I don't see Peeker way of playing as anti-town (I find it funny and really hard to skim his posts - sometimes I even have to look up half the words only to find out they don't exsist).

I think vanilla claims are SO anti-town (but I might be a bit too sensitive because of past games).

As for pro-scum-actions... I'm not sure what that would be other then the lynch of town (but town do that too) and lying (and I havn't see any sign of that yet).

[Chucara]

Nov 24, 2008 20:06:03 GMT -5 sinjin said:

Nov 24, 2008 19:32:43 GMT -5 storyteller0910 said:

I'm not Chucara, but given his experiences and role in our game, I can see one type of Pro-Town investigator that you've left out of your analysis, that could easily catch shaggy in a lie without being able to confirm shaggy's alignment - a type of investigator that probably would have occurred pretty naturally to Chucara.

Two points:

1) When referring to past games can you be a little more explicit. Not all of us have followed them closely. Is it really too tough to tell the rest of us what type of pro-town investigator would catch Chucara in a lie? I know Kat piped right in and answered, but, when reading your post before I got to Kat's it just annoyed me. Like, now I have to go back to the last game and figure out what you mean, bleh.

In regards to storyteller's comment, I was a watcher in the last game. In this game, if a watcher investigated shaggy, who has claimbed vanilla townie and he is discovered to have performed a night action, that would mean he got caught in the lie. Second, I thought a role investigator didn't reveal alignment. And third, a name investigator would also catch him in a lie.

I assume the "catch Chucara in a lie" comment was actually meant as "catch Shaggy/molefan in a lie"? Otherwise, I'm confused.

[shaggy]

Hey all, well thanks Mr special ed you did answer it, and it was a reasonable answer. I can see what your saying now.

[sinjin]

Nov 25, 2008 4:48:42 GMT -5 Chucara said:

I assume the "catch Chucara in a lie" comment was actually meant as "catch Shaggy/molefan in a lie"? Otherwise, I'm confused.

Yes it should have been Shaggy/molefan.

[NAF1138]

Nov 25, 2008 2:32:42 GMT -5 Total Ullz said:

I'm not trying to push you into a discussion of the theory in it self - but I thought we might talk about what we see as anti-town behavior. I have a feeling not everyone agrees on what anti-town is...

I am totally fine with this type of conversation, since it will be more or less game related and we can (and should) use in game examples of things that we think have been anti-town and pro-scum. I will let someone else start, since for about 80% of the people playing the game this will be a retread of the same things I say every game. I am getting tired of typing them and I am sure everyone is tired of me lecturing.

I will say that the distinction between anti-town (but not pro-scum) and full on pro-scum behavior is slight and not always easy to spot. Particularly without an established pattern of behavior within the context of a game. That's why I suggest going after anti-town behavior in general in the first Day or two of the game, since at that point they are essentially one and the same and each lynch gains useful data for the town. This approach changes as the game moves forward.


Oh and what the heck, here is a little bit on why I think excessive fluff is anti-town and potentially pro-scum.

To Peeker:
I agree, that more is more. I am a big believer of analyzing Night talk for information. More talking is always good. But more quality talk is better than more fluff. Fluff is better than silence, but not by much. It's also easier to draw attention to yourself with silence than it is with fluff, so groups of heavy fluff talkers are more likely to have scum among them than groups of lurkers others. I don't really want to do the data mining, but I think the numbers in our game history will support this theory.

My guess would be that 60-70% of all the scum that have played in these games have hidden among fluff talkers and other low substance posters. These are the people that I refer to as, flying under the radar. Players who seem to be talking, and if you look at nothing but post numbers are maybe even talking a good bit but aren't actually saying anything. Aren't taking sides, aren't posting opinions, aren't giving reasons for votes. As fluffing in game becomes more acceptable, this sort of behavior is more and more likely to also become a hallmark of a town player, and then we start running into some real problems.

There are then a few scum players who fall into the heavy analysis posters, and an even smaller group who fall in with the lurkers. These are a separate problem and require different solutions, but the pool of this type of player is smaller than the middle ground fluff talker. So at the moment that isn't something we need to worry as much about. If we make excessive fluff talking, or entirely content-less posts verboten, then we have a smaller pool of fluff talkers to look for scum in and this is a good start.

Disclaimer: I recognize that I am describing moving toward ideal behavior in my above posts, I also realize that this is likely not necessarily realistic. No one is going to behave perfectly all the time. This goes back to my maxim that everyone will act anti-town at some point. But if we give ourselves a goal behavior to work toward, we can limit the amount of damage we inflict on ourselves.

[bufftabby]

I understand the whole "keep the fluff down, you drunken perverts!" point of view, but at the same time I wouldn't view a fluffless game as "ideal behavior". I think *some* fluff is part of the fun, and I wouldn't want to play in a fluffless game. I mean, I'd rather play a *recruitment game* than that, and trust me, that's saying a lot. I think we can definitely all meet in the middle on the fluff issue, really, without total extermination of fluff being our goal. Sorry, for the slight hijack everyone, but I feel strongly about fluff!

[Idle Thoughts]

Does anyone pay attention to the posting ranks anymore?

[Total Ullz]

Nov 25, 2008 13:13:32 GMT -5 bufftabby said:

I mean, I'd rather play a *recruitment game* than that, and trust me, that's saying a lot. I think we can definitely all meet in the middle on the fluff issue, really, without total extermination of fluff being our goal. Sorry, for the slight hijack everyone, but I feel strongly about fluff!

I agree - but I like the balance between fluff and game-related post to be at least 50/50. If you want to fluff a lot at the end of a good and sensible post or you might get a "fluff-to-fluff"-moment with another player... I don't see the harm.

But right now I'll keep my vote on MiteyM - because 1 post doesn't remove the suspicion of a lurker... I'm not saying MiteyM didn't contribut with her last post - but I need to see a bit more (please ;D)

[Santo Rugger]

Looks like they're ways Mario gets more powerful in different games?

[NAF1138]

Nov 25, 2008 13:13:32 GMT -5 bufftabby said:

I understand the whole "keep the fluff down, you drunken perverts!" point of view, but at the same time I wouldn't view a fluffless game as "ideal behavior". I think *some* fluff is part of the fun, and I wouldn't want to play in a fluffless game. I mean, I'd rather play a *recruitment game* than that, and trust me, that's saying a lot. I think we can definitely all meet in the middle on the fluff issue, really, without total extermination of fluff being our goal. Sorry, for the slight hijack everyone, but I feel strongly about fluff!

Fair enough. I was using ideal in the literal sense, as in unatainable godlike perfection. It wouldn't actually be any fun to play an ideal game.

All I am asking is that people make a concerted effort to post at least as much content as fluff, and to try to keep fluff to posts that already contain some content. I am not saying we shouldn't have fun, I am just saying that we actually play the game we came to play a bit too and not spend 3 pages flirting with each other.

[Total Ullz]

Nov 24, 2008 11:27:17 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Can we please use one period at a time?

I do that all the time
I didn't think I could be a problem - so sorry! I'll try not to do it too much (but is going to be really difficult... (whoops))

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 25, 2008 14:00:41 GMT -5 Total Ullz said:

Nov 24, 2008 11:27:17 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Can we please use one period at a time?

I do that all the time
I didn't think I could be a problem - so sorry! I'll try not to do it too much (but is going to be really difficult... (whoops))

It's useful to prove a point... but if it's done all the time... it ends up coming of like an old man... who's drooling... and can't quite finish a sentence... or a university professor... who's speaking in monotone...

Anyway, you get my point, but shaggy already changed his posting; I don't understand why you're apologizing for it?