No, I’m not sure Kelly is a “he”. I have that impression from somewhere, but I could be wrong.
One other thing about the second vote – I still don’t know how to tie together my feeling that a player-enforced early “dusk” would be unworkable (and sometimes undesirable), plus the feeling that second votes have to be well-justified, with the need for power role players to try to level up. Obviously “I’m moving/adding a vote now for leveling reasons” must be allowable as a rationale, on some level. But under what circumstances? Should such votes be accepted when the race is otherwise still close? Should we try to push for frequent discussion of the current status of the votes, such that a consensus could be reached at some point ahead of the end of the day, even without a hard and fast rule? If/when we ever get a confirmed townie it might be possible for them to call it.
I tried to organize something like this in one of my first games here (may even have been the first, I can’t remember). It was impossible, because it only works if everyone does it, and not everyone will do it. And it’s impossible to enforce, because there are a host of reasons - often involving real life - why one might not make the deadline(s). Based on my experience, I just don’t think it’s feasible.
I agree with this case, and want to emphasize the part that I see as the most damaging: **Kelly **demands examples (in an fairly aggressive way), then blames **Stanlislaus **for going through all of the “effort” of providing those examples. Don’t ask for cites, then use the fact that someone provided them to try to smudge them further! Not cool.
I find Normal’s case on Kelly very interesting. I admit that I had a response to the request for cites, but I put that down to aggravation with the search process and didn’t want to fall into OMGUS style thinking.
However: the reasoning behind the FOS was the same pede used; the “lot of effort just to get me to remove a FOS” line smacks of an overestimation of how much others are focused on his play (typical of self-conscious scum) - in fact, as my vote suggested, I was focused on pede; the attempt to compliment me while equivocating on my alignment looks like both snuggling and fence-sitting…
RE : Kelly - I’ve since forgotten who said it, but I believe someone had mentioned once in one of the games here that it’s usualy more likely that the second or third or fourth (etc…) person on a bandwagon is more likely to be scum than the person that started, as scum will see a stone at the top of the hill and want to nudge it away from themselves. Kelly didn’t vote, but did FOS, with a weak argument.
Shadow and Stanislaus : Possible scum amongst the two of you, but only because of what I noted above. This is no where near enough to even suspect either of you, however. Voting history, and your actions during this game, will tell better.
Kelly does seem best as a good first day target, but he/she hasn’t even mounted a defense yet. Let us see what comes.
my thoughts on the two-vote mechanic are as follows:
it certainly is new and can be unnerving for reasons already mentioned. setting a another deadline prior to the mod-imposed one looks good on paper but i agree that it’s not realistic, not necessarily because players will ignore it but things can happen in RL that require attention or a player’s computer or internet connection dies. how do we enforce the rule? do we then lynch players who do not follow the first deadline? i still would encourage though those who can vote with a day left in the Day to do so.
i agree with SP and the others who say that we should be able to justify our votes whether it’s the first or the second. those who vote after the initial deadline may well have to justify harder.
i would also like to add that we may also have to justify not using our second vote just as we would have to justify not voting in the traditional on-vote games.
[ul]
[li]It’s unworkable: there’s no way we could get everyone to agree (as we have already seen).[/li][li]It absolves people from taking responsibility for their own votes.[/li][li]It makes it impossible to use the voting record as a Scum-hunting tool.[/li][li]It’s ‘policy-based voting’, which I am steadfastly against.[/li][/ul]
It’s really quite simple:
Vote for the person who you think is most likely to be Scum.
Be prepared to support the reasoning behind your vote.
Repeat as needed.
That’s it. If you need to make up extra rules and restrictions to defend your votes, then there’s probably a good reason for that.
This is just stating things other people have said before.
And this just screams of weak FOS’s thrown around for the sake of it. Calling out the “Being the third on a bandwagon” thing and then limply backing down on it in case it draws too much attention? Two posts that look like they were just made for the sake of posting something.
So, the votes are a-coming. What can I say. Yeah, that was a bit aggressive the way I demanded Stanislaus show some cites for his claim, but I thought that was in keeping with the “everyone is a suspect tone” approach to Day 1. That I was suspicious of choie’s “all the townies” comment prior to reading any post after it, is something I can merely restate as the truth, but can offer nothing more. I wanted to protect myself against “future criticism” with my bandwagony comment, yes. If I hadn’t, I’d have been accused of bandwagoning, which seems like damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
So, if any of the votes I have attracted so far are from townies, then please reconsider, because I am not scum.
vote NormalPhase, for starting a whole line of mis-reasoning that’s piled votes on someone I know to be town (me). Better not try and protect myself against OMGYS responses, coz pre-empting such criticism is apparently bad (or something).
On rereading, I was noticing how we were thinking of how we can level up Townies by them voting for scum. We were not considering how the scum level up. If the scum get experience from voting for Town, then if we lynched wrong and had everyone joining the bandwagon on that player, we would be giving the scum a perfect place to hide while they level up. This is just speculation since we don’t know how the scum level up, but I think we should keep in mind that our actions could also benefit them. For myself, there is only a couple of situations that I am likely to cast a second vote. One, when the lynchee is almost certainly scum (e.g. we have a result from an uncounterclaimed investigator) or it is a very close vote and I want to make it clear that I am voting for the person I feel is most suspicious.
I think both Normal’s case on Kelly and Scathach’s case on Koldanar are good cases. I also am pinged a bit by Silver Jan finding pede’s behavior scummy but giving him a pass because he unvoted.
I was thinking I was going to vote for Koldanar, but Kelly’s most recent post has made me change my mind. Normal might ultimately be wrong, but I do not see “mis-reasoning” on her part.
a handshake is where people attempt to confirm similarities in roles (usually in their PMs) to confirm they are aligned with Town.
For example, if all of the Vanilla roles had the same exact PM and it was not made public or provided to the Scum, then the players could each reveal info from that PM and confirm each other.
This has been done by reveal the number of a specific letters in a win condition, for example. I would say, I have 7 e’s and smeone else might respond that they have 4 t’s and one of them is capital. Without access to the actual PM, one couldn’t participate in the handshake.
However, most mods counter that by either:
Providing a copy of the Vanilla PM to everyone publicly.
Creating unique PMs for each player.
Giving Scum access to a Vanilla and perhaps other cover PMs privately.