I sense the beginnings of a beautiful friendship. 
NETA: You and Ed, that is, if it wasn’t clear.
Joke votes don’t get traction around here, even on day one.
Koldanar –
Why was this even mentioned?
If it’s nowhere near enough to suspect, why even bring it up? You describe yourself as a nervous player, and this certainly does look like you’re just throwing words at the screen out of nerves, but objectively what is there to be nervous about?
I certainly feel that I’m bad at this, and the only way to get better is to practice. I want to watch those two for behaviors later in the game (if I even make it there)…the though then was, if I mention it now on Day one, come day whatever, I have this to go back to to help justify. Is this really a move seen as scummy / bad? I’ve been railroaded before for similar behavior, in my first game (and man, was I railroaded BAD), but I felt I could better defend this action today.
From my perspective it looks like Kelly being in trouble flustered you. You make that nervous-looking “now we’re getting somewhere” comment, you talk about Kelly and bandwagons for a while without really saying anything, you apply the bandwagon comment to two other players sort of willy-nilly, again without really drawing any conclusions, and so on. But it’s scummy to a lesser extent even if I’m wrong about him, for the reason scathach pointed out: it’s a lot of words to go nowhere. And that is characteristic of scum more frequently than town.
Your vote for askthepizzaguy is defensible: you’re right that he never indicated any direct suspicion of you. He’s voting for strategic reasons, he says; anything more is only implied (by his choosing you over me, for instance; I think I had a vote by then). He doesn’t reference scathach’s rationale. But I’m still more suspicious of you than of him.
Wow, an eventful evening, filled with new arrivals and discussion. Welcome, USCDiver, and also to Silver Jan’s grandchild!
I have to admit askthepizzaguy’s voting post took me aback, because it seemed so out-of-left-field and without rationale. Like he was just blindly playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Especially since I don’t see anything particularly scummy in Koldanar. However, it appears pizza is fashioning himself a shield by claiming to be an unknown entity but a superstar strategic player-- kinda like the old timey western card sharp riding in from out of town to show the rubes how poker is really played. “Ah, you don’t know me yet, but I have deep reasons for all I do!” 
And hell, maybe he does. I’m too inexperienced to recognize depth of play in this game. It’s just that his style of play reminds me more of Nomic – where it’s all about metagaming rather than actually analyzing posts.
Anyway, I’m not going to vote for him without hearing more from him. Thus far the only other person whose behavior seemed genuinely offputting was Kelly. I’m not 100% convinced by his explanation for his brusque demands and brush-off of Stanislaus. Okay, maybe he really was just playacting; maybe he’s just not a polite kind of forum personality. But my current theory is that the real reason he was behaving aggressively was to throw off suspicion of himself and stake his claim as being Uber Town Defender.
So shutting up and finally voting, I’ll
vote KellyCriterion.
And please forgive me if I’m wrong and he’s innocent. (Boy, I never expected voting to give me such a burden of responsibility! Well, this ain’t a real trial: we don’t have to vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right?)
We’re through discussing the 2-vote mechanics for now, but it’s relevant to reiterate that Town Powers have a very strong incentive to move their vote (or place their 2nd vote) on the Lynchee near deadline. To keep their Power secret they hope Vanilla do this as well. Yet after this has been explained several times, we still see:
Thus it seems almost certain to me that Askthepizzaguy is NOT a Town Power. But is he just a Vanilla who, despite much discussion, hasn’t considered the tactic needed by Town Powers, or is he Scum trying to discourage Vanilla from the late Lynchee vote? If Scum get away with such discouraging it will be very bad for Town, as one of three things will happen:
[ul][li] The late vote switch will be recognizable to Scum as strong evidence that the player has Power and hopes to gain a level.[/li][li] To prevent that inference, Powers will often have to forfeit opportunity for advancing a level.[/li][li] To get a good chance at the extra level, without the vote-switch that marks them as Power, the Town Powers will vote for who is likely to be Lynched, rather than who they really think is Scum.[/li][/ul]
I realize there are some arguments the other way, but the incentive for these vote switches is very strong, and may help Town a lot. Arguing against them so strongly, early and often, seems quite pro-Scum.
But there are other reasons I’m developing strong suspicions about Askthepizzaguy. He voted for Red Skeezix after Red had made a total of zero posts in the Game! And this was no Lynch-the-Lurker vote; it was made almost immediately after Day 1 was declared open! Joke votes can be OK, but now Askthepizzaguy writes as though this were a real vote:
Then he moves his move to Koldanar, with some argument that he doesn’t like to follow bandwagons. And yet, the only reason given (“Looking at who others found worthy of a vote”) for choosing Koldanar as a Lynch candidate is a Bandwagon (of FOS).
I’d like to hear any coherent explanation of why he personally thinks either of his choices is scum.
My impression is that Askthepizzaguy is a disciple of the “Stir the pot” school, but he seems to carry it much too far. That, and the fact that discouraging Vanillas from masking Power vote switches is pro-Scum, makes my decision easy:
Vote: Askthepizzaguy
Why did you pick Koldanar over any of the other candidates with the same number of votes?
Some thoughts on the leading vote-getters:
KellyCriterion: He’s picking up votes mainly because of his interaction with Stanislaus. I agree that it was a bit over the top, but it’s not screaming ‘Scum!’ at me.
Koldanar: the case made by **Scathach **is pretty good at this point; **Koldanar **managed to smudge three people in one post without even hinting that he thought they might be Scum, and his vote on **Askthepizzaguy **is basically OMGUS (though I’m not sure I can blame him too much in this particular case)
Askthepizzaguy: His vote on Koldanar, and the ‘reasoning’ behind it, are among the worst I’ve seen in quite a while. Really, this is such a bad vote that there’s no way Scum would do that, right?
Normal Phase: **KellyCriterion **placed what can only be described as an OMGUS vote, and Silver Jan is voting her for metagame reasons. Personally, I’m not seeing anything that would lead me to jump on this bandwagon.
I’ve got to do a bit or re-reading before going any further here, but just so I don’t forget to do this:
**unvote special ed **
[oog]Turns out there’s no internet at the family vacation spot so I will be offline more than I thought until Tuesday. I’m looking for Starbucks as we speak though, so I shouldn’t be gone totally![/oog]
Uncontroversial, yes. Obvious, certainly. And yet some people still did not seem to get the memo. Perhaps there should have been a few more repeat posts about justifying votes. 
A bit more directly, I find Askthepizzaguy’s vote here to be terrible and his follow-up explanation even worse, as others just above have already outlined. I need to review the case against KellyCriterion (where my vote currently sits) to see which actions I like less before I decide if I will change, though. I’m at work right now and squeezing in this game between meetings.
Posting as I catch up
Yes, I often point things out and don’t vote. Sometimes it’s interesting to see the reactions.
When I’m ready, I’ll vote, though it is getting later in the day than I expected.
Here’s why this is so wrong.
Your stated reason is that the original person you voted for doesn’t appear lynchable. So, instead, you’re voting for someone who does appear lynchable.
Now, if our goal was to lynch someone, that would be efective. However, our goal is to lynch Scum. You’ve given no indication why one is more likely to be Scum than the other.
@Normal Phase
I’m looking at your case on Kelly. You wrote:
[bold mine, for emphasis]
And here’s what Kelly actually wrote:
I’m not seeing aggressivity here. Which part did you find aggressive?
Maybe after you re-read this, you can do this in red?
You’ve never been guilty before when people vote you on day one?
And this somehow makes you not-guilty now, I presume?
Gettin’ kinda tense, ain’tcha.
Oh please. As if analysis of your couple of posts, or anyone’s, is more productive than pressure voting at this stage of the game.
:rolleyes:
You’re certainly responding to pressure. And when this silly lynch of me or Kelly happens, I will ask that folks kindly remove their heads from their collective buttocks, and put even more pressure on you.
I think my actions are very good. You’re clearly squirming, I’d call it wriggling like a worm on a hook. 
That’s a shame. Joke votes can catch scum just as well as “serious” ones, and you don’t have to bother with that pesky “reasoning” based on all of no activity or day one activity. There’s no deflecting a case when it’s based on “I just voted you, so there!”
Do you always beat yourself up as a sympathy-generating tactic, or are you only this manipulative when you’re a scumbag?
I’ll tell you what’s scummy and bad, selling yourself short. If you’re really such a “bad” player, you’re not giving me much reason to move my vote elsewhere in the first place (Like, I dunno, mindlessly wagoning Kelly just to save myself). I’d rather die and make it a statement about how much I’d want you to die after me.
If you’re not such a bad player, then selling yourself short is scummy.
“And seriously, don’t do that!”
I’ll get more into analysis later on in the game where there’s something to pattern. There’s precious little on day one, and I’m sure you’re all aware of this. However, my out-of-left-field reasonless pressure votes which you’re all kicking as being illogical are generating… you know… posts that we can analyze.
Did I just blow your mind? :eek:
Sure. They’re not me, and I’m not scum. Therefore there is a good chance someone else is. 
Too far? You haven’t even seen me get warmed up.
I also particularly think you’re talking to no one in particular in this post, which is one of the classic signs of being a scumbag. Announcing what you’re doing, as if you’re putting on a performance on stage. It’s just bad acting, translated as text.
I’ll be suggesting you for a lynch at my earliest convenience. Unfortunately this wagon has rendered it inconvenient.
I didn’t do a tally. I just knew that there wasn’t going to be a wagon forming on you, so I decided to use my vote more constructively. And in spite of nonsensical protestations that my vote was otherwise, it has generated lots of discussion and reaction. And once I am dead and found to be innocent, this discussion and those reactions will be kind of useful. If people bother to analyze them.
Gee, thanks?
If this dude comes up guilty, will it shatter your reality? I’m noticing a rather dogmatic viewpoint here that every vote needs to have a sherlock holmes-like case attached to it. On day one, that is rather absurd.
I can point out how absurd it is. Suppose the guilty parties simply don’t talk much, or go “I agree with X’s reasoning for the vote” and follows suit.
Now, generate a “case” based on that behavior. I’ll be waiting. In the meanwhile, listen to this music.
Just based on that alone, I think this silly notion of big fat cases on day one should be shelved. You can’t always generate a case on scum. Sometimes they play in a way that avoids things you can pick on. You know how you can counter that? Pressure votes.
You don’t need reasons. But threatening them with death can shake things loose. Maybe it gets them talking, nervously, babbling something about how no one has ever voted them on round one and been right before, as if that ever mattered in the slightest.
:dubious:
Let’s pretend we’re giving me the benefit of the doubt for a second.
I can do one of three things:
- Vote someone that no one else has an interest in lynching, and is under no pressure from my vote due to Kellywagon
- Vote someone that others have an interest in lynching, as there is a possibility that said person is guilty.
- Do nothing
Which do you think is more productive?
This is fun, by the way. You’re actually making me work and think and stuff. On day one! I think I’ll like it here. You know, once folks start taking me seriously.
I’ll grow on you… just you wait.
The more I read, the less I’m suspicious of askthepizza.
I often love to vote just to get reactions. I’ve learned to only do it when I’m confirmed Town, however, as it does garner much suspicion. But the reactions are worthy. I can understand the rationale.
Take a closer look at Koldanar and septimus, whenever you get the chance.
That is my conclusion from the activity on day one.
What is your opinion on Kelly?