Oh you didn’t have to list me as #1, it was painful enough, I don’t need to be reminded of it. 
On the multivote, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it was not possible to cast both on the same player. Was it permitted in previous games using multivotes?
I’ve found my answer, reading back in the thread. :smack:
Forsooth! Verily, thou I agreest to be ackurate! I be tempeted by tharst Evil Mistress of Anti-Logic by thine motto of mafya: “Voteth early and Voteth of’en”. E’en on Day 1, howe’er, I am suspect that you beth rightly to disdain.
Unvote Choie
(Funnily enougheth, such a bandwagon claimed myself not more than a week ago!
Indeed! I shall voweth to not use my vote of double indefinitely.
I agree that the double vote could lead to scum manipulation, but I also agree with those that say we should just try to make sure player’s votes are well justified. I believe the possible benefits of allowing our power roles to level up makes it worth the risk of having double votes.
The most suspicious thing I have seen so far is pedescribe’s vote on Choie for the apparent slip, but I also know pede generally votes very early with very little reason just to get a vote down, so I don’t find it as suspicious as I might for some other players.
I just got home a little while ago and have only read through once quickly. I will try to reread more thoroughly tomorrow and see if anything jumps out at me.
Catching up here,
In the pedescribe v choie exchange, I find pedescribe to be the scummier of the two. I think those kind of statements (the one choie was making) are not particularly indicative of anything. And jumping on them, at the bare minimum shows an over-eagerness to vote.
As far as the two votes discussion: I’m of the opinion that the mods have given me some tools, and If I see a justified use for two votes, I’m probably gonna vote twice. The whole idea that a second vote favors scum is circumstantial. It really depends on how it’s used. Here’s some points i’m tossing around in my head right now:
-
Some players will vote twice, and some won’t. Why leave that door open for scum to have a greater influence on the lynch, by not using both votes when two votes are justifiable.
-
More votes = more data. More data = more chances to catch scum. Especially since in this game, unlike others with multivoting where a certain number was required, every single vote has to be properly justified. And every second vote has to be really really justified, since it locks a player in for the day.
-
The second vote lock-in means that in a close lynch scenario, it should be possible (although I haven’t worked out the details) to prevent many types of scum voting shenanigans. The first one that springs to mind is the vote and then switch at the end of the day.
(This has already been mentioned) However due to the hammer mechanism, it would be possible for scum to lock-in a hammering vote in a close vote to ensure that the player they want to get lynched, gets lynched. But I say by all means, if that happens, it will be pretty obvious.
Thou speakest nobly and with generosity of spirit, good sir. Thy retraction is appreciated, verily.
O.O.G.: Whoa, I just read that. Are you Trepa over there? 'Cause if so, dayum that was a hot mess. Talk about a freakazoid rationale for a lynching. What the heck else should the scum, who are rabid animals in this game, have been called, other than “rabids”?
(On the plus side, now I have the Monty Python “Lemming… Lemming… Lemming of the B.D.A.” song in my head.)
But – again, speaking as a newcomer – it’s sure seems as if on Day 1 there’s precious little reason behind lynching, short of a wild-ass guess or some major gaffe/misspeaking on the part of a player. I suppose bandwagoning is inevitable in this case? I mean, someone’s gotta be sacrificed, if only for our safety’s sake. In this game, the moral seems to be that it’s better (at least at the start) for one innocent to die than for a guilty person to go free.
But I’ll be damned if I know which lamb should go to the slaughter first. 
Anyone wanna volunteer to be the Judas goat?
Regardless of double-voting, many of us seem to agree that a pre-deadline may be needed, perhaps 12 or 24 hours before the official deadline. If we agree to this in advance, any Lynch targets that want to claim would do so before the pre-deadline, and at that deadline the Lynchee would be determined. (4 days should be enough time to pick Lynchee.)
After pre-deadline has passed, everyone could move their votes to the agreed Lynchee, to take advantage of the power-enhancement rule. At that point, I don’t think it would matter whether players just move their one vote, or place a 2nd vote (though we should agree which will be done).
We have to make sure there’s no way scum can “game” the system, but I don’t think there is. The first 4 days of the Day would be exactly the same as an ordinary 5-day Day. On the 5th day, everyone would move their vote to Lynchee. Anyone who didn’t would be scum and could be Lynched next day (or the same day by double-voting when the double-voting is otherwise disallowed.)
We might need exceptions for the late game, both to Hammer and to prevent scum dog-piling when we’re down to less than 7 players or so, but otherwise this may solve both problems of the voting mechanics. Having a pre-deadline seems tedious, but that was being proposed in other solutions as well.
To vote or not to vote, that is the question!
@ Choie yes Pedescribe was Trepa over there.
Day 1 does seem to be a wild guess or someone misspeaking. I see **Red Skeezix **came back as Red, how frustrating 
I thought Pedescribe’s vote on Choie was a bit scummy but now he has unvoted her so that’s that.
I feel that if I am allowed 2 votes that I should have the right to excercise them both, I don’t know if I will of course. If players decide that no one should use their 2nd vote then what happens if someone makes a mistake and forgets to unvote before voting again, should they automatically be assumed to be scum? I think the 2nd vote should be used at our discretion. It has happened that a player has forgotten to unvote.
I don’t think I stated my position clearly enough. Given an absence of reason for using a second vote, we should not use it. It is easier for the traitors among us to hide their treachery if everyone is double-voting simply because they can. There will be no useful way of distinguishing their behavior from the rest of ours. It should not be “I can double vote, so I will.” Explanations should be needed when people are double voting, or they should be executed. If the explanation seems logical, then perhaps it can be excused. But “no reason” should not be accepted as a reason. We don’t accept that as a reason for a first vote, and doubly so, we shouldn’t accept it for a second one.
Given the mechanics I agree it’s something to be careful with, but we can’t let “I forgot to un vote” be a get out of jail free card.
I agree that this is the logical way to do it. But I genuinely doubt whether a group of rugged individualists such as us can make it work. For example, if the lynchleader claims Cop 5 mins before a genuine, mod-enforced Dusk, then tough. More fool them for waiting so long. But if someone claims cop 5 mins before a player-enforced “Dusk” then are we really going to ignore that and pile votes on them? I’d like to think we would have the discipline to stick to our own rules but as we have limited enforcement mechanisms it’s going to require a degree of self-control that, to put it mildly, hasn’t always been evidenced in other Mafia games.
If want to go for this, I’m in - but it requires total commitment from everyone, in all eventualities.
Allright, a recap for myself to make sure I understand :
-
Double voting right now can lead to bad things for town, due to possible scum manipulation of second votes.
-
Vote #2 locks you in.
-
pedescribe votes early (for Opal [sorry, had to])
So far, we’re not left with much today to look for. We’re calling for a vote lock in before Dusk, yes? Can we make it a 24 hour limit on day 1 and possibly day 2, since there isn’t as much information / discussion out there yet? We can bump it to 48 hours later, once there are posts to comb over, and motivations to find.
That’s what? Pedescribe’s unvote is a null tell:
If he were Town who’d made a bad vote and got called on it, he’d unvote.
If he were Scum who’d made a bad vote and got called on it, he’d unvote.
If you found it scummy when he did it, it’s still scummy now that he’s retracted it under pressure.
Apropos of nothing, I disagree with this sentiment. Provided that people talk enough, I can almost always find something real to vote on on day one. I don’t think it’s nearly as much of a problem as people like to say. Just take last game as an example. We had Astral’s bad (town) mistake, and his claim, both providing plenty of fodder for discussion. There was good solid town thinking behind most (not all) of the town votes that day. And despite that no scum was seriously pressured, scummy behavior was already evident. Zeriel got two well-placed votes. Silver Jan was “third on the bandwagon behind two townies” in a sense in her post-claim vote on Astral; her unvote was even scummier. Winston Smith didn’t say anything substantive until poked (at which point he provided a vote on a townie that he in later days could not stay consistent with) and mostly avoided the Astral discussion. nesta was likewise very avoidant as regards Astral, despite that her starting the fubbleskag bandwagon disguised that in people’s minds for a good long time.
I, of course, have no scum tells. cough
Anyway. Day one may or may not be successful at the time; by the odds and by the noise-to-signal ratio, it’s usually not. But it can be a gold mine for the town later on, provided the town is not too lazy to go look for it, and provided that there is substantive discussion there in the first place. This is why I always give a bit of a side-eye to people who want to reduce day one to just “wild guesses and mis-speaking”. It’s that only if people make it so.
As you should know from last game, unvotes can be even scummier than the original vote. In this case I get no serious bad vibes from pedescribe’s wording, but the vote itself was cheap, and that’s still there. I’m not liking the casual way you dismiss the issue, giving the unvote – merely because of being an unvote, not for anything pedescribe actually said – weight it should not have.
There’s another player I want to look at before deciding who gets my vote, but I am pinged by this.
unvote
vote: KellyCriterion
Essentially the same “crime” as pedescribe, over-reacting to “hi townies”, however states it as merely a FOS instead of a vote. I’m pinged especially by him for the following reasons:
- Has to point out, with his FOS, that he wasn’t influenced by pedescribe’s post in doing so. Why is this something that needs to be said? (And the “bandwagony” comment afterwards, too. Too much like trying to pre-empt criticism, and worse, the criticism probably wasn’t even coming. It feels like a guilty conscience.)
- When his reasoning (but not, directly, he himself) is called out as being scummier than the original offense, his wording of his reaction is aggressive. (Compare what he actually said to what he could have said, something like “I’ve never heard of this being common. Can you show me some examples?”) Why such a strong reaction to the rationale behind a mere FOS being questioned? It’s not like Kelly is so convinced of choie’s scummitude that any attempt to deflect such should get a huge stink-eye, right?
- The “un-FOS” has an air of resenting having to take it back (“I’ll pay the effort if nothing else”), plus the bit I underlined looks a heck of a lot like a subtle attempt to get a dig in at Stanislaus as a potential scum partner of choie’s. That he doesn’t say so outright makes the whole thing look dishonest.
In summary, Kelly looks like a scum who thought his FOS was a whole lot more supportable than it was (minus a potential bandwagoning allegation which he was sure to deflect from the outset), and who was very much not happy to find out otherwise. He looks angry about it, and I don’t see why a townie would be, over a mere FOS.
I very much do not think it will work as conceived. I know myself, and I know if the deadline is 24 hours previous, and someone I’m not all that suspicious of shows up a few hours later (but before many votes have moved) with a decent claim and a RL sob story about not having been around to claim earlier, there’s no way I’m going to want to stick to the “rules”. I’d say it’s even debatable whether it would be town-friendly to do so in such a case.
I see the rules as being two-sided. I think it’s not really much of an argument as to whether they provide opportunities for the scum. They clearly do. The question, then, is whether the town can be sharp enough and clever enough to neutralize those opportunities or even turn them back on the bad guys, should they show their hand too obviously. The rules put an extra burden on us, and make it more likely that sloppy or careless play will lead to a loss.
Right at the moment I like the way that askthepizzaguy is framing the issue. Votes have to be justified. Second votes should REALLY have to be justified. I will not say that no one should place one, but they should have a good reason, and be really, really clear about what that reason is.
That’s a good point! Though it doesn’t really negate the idea that misspeaking and guess-work are often a big part of Day 1. IIRC, wasn’t Astral Rejection’s mistake due to his simply forgetting the name of the townie team, which admittedly seemed a HUGE scum-tell but turned out to be innocent because of the somewhat misleading label for the good-guy team? (“Slumlords” usually being baddies.) The subsequent “dog-pile on the rabbit” behavior of the rest of the townies (and, natch, the scummy ALEs) where everyone leapt on that gaffe, while understandable – and made for hella good drama for those of us in the peanut gallery – was still just due to a gaffe.
All that said, it really was a good debate and you’re right that the suspicion of Astral and his error was rationally-based. 'Twas a juicy discussion indeed, full of excitement. …If only it had been right. 
Anyway I’m just vamping here on this subject 'cause to be honest the whole double-vote thing is so over my head, I’m getting vertigo just trying to look up at it. I’ll abide by whatever the more knowledgable folks decide upon. But I do feel the need to mention that I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the logic of this comment, by septimus:
Isn’t this advocating for a dangerous sort of bandwagoning? A suggestion whereby everyone must vote for the highest vote-getter, and to do otherwise means the minority person is definitely scum and lynch-worthy? I’m not saying that the fair town of De’endee is a democracy, but this notion seems draconian to me. Or am I misunderstanding it?
Very well stated. I very very much agree with Normal Phase and askthepizzaguy here. FWIW.
BTW, it took me so freakin’ long to compose my above post that I didn’t notice your vote of KellyCriterion (are you sure he’s a he, btw?). I’m loath to vote anyone who FOSed me, just because that does seem so OMGUSy, but your post verbalized something that did bother me earlier – his/her oddly aggressive remark demanding a cite of past first-Day mistakes, and subsequent snarky/dismissive/smudgey “gee that’s a lot of effort, big boy”* response when Stanislaus duly complied.
It could just be leaping to the offense to weed out the Lords of Slaughter wherever they may be hiding, made out of the genuine fear that we all feel in our hearts after seeing our friends/neighbors so cruelly murdered.
…Or it’s an attempt by one of the Lords of Slaughter him/herselves to act a role of righteous fury, in order to fit in and prove him/herself beyond reproach.
I’m leaning toward the latter. Though maybe that’s hypocritical of me since I was genuinely grateful to Kelly for removing the FOS. Holy crap am I wishy-washy or what?**
- I’m paraphrasing, obviously.
** not to mention wordy
I don’t have timeeth to do a proper faketh akcent, but I just wanted to chimeth in that I don’t like the idea of a town-imposed dusk.