[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
Ergh, it’s early, no edit… my boss is the only other person besides me in the department, that is. So busy Monday + no help = just taking a lunch causes stuff to pile up uncontrollably.
[/QUOTE]
Welcome back to the land of the posters fluiddruid. Glad to see that it was more along the lines of traditional work stuff as opposed to something more serious.
[QUOTE=bufftabby]
Ok, so this is very strange to me, Koldy. I know you’re not like, a newb and stuff, and I’m pretty sure the standard setup is that scum can only communicate at Night. In fact, I pretty much took it for granted that this would be the case. This question seems to me like a scum trying to establish non-scum credibility. “Scum would never have to ask about that, they would already know, so Koldanar can’t be scum”. That question just rings false with me. Now, if I’m wrong that the standard setup is that scum can only communicate at Night, and this was actually a possibly-legitimate question, I’ll cheerfully rescind my suspicion, but that question really pinged me.
[color=blue]vote Koldanar[color]
That, and I’m racist against dwarves.
[/QUOTe]
I don’t know about this one. I understand that typically scum can only talk at night, just like typically town can’t talk strategy at night but it never hurts to clarify with the Mod if the rule is not specifically addressed.
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
FWIW, I agree with Story on this, with the exception of power roles (who I believe should generally self-protect at greater cost). Liars are all too often scum and if you take away the ‘lynch liars’ philosophy then it becomes quite unreasonably difficult to lynch scum even with very strong tells.
This discussion seems to come up every Day. In short, you should never consider a vote truly random. Scum tells are never random. I would think most scum players would avoid random voting for another scum player; while I could see more experienced scum players doing it, it’s a risky move. Votes tend to stick when you least expect them to.
Townies can random vote at least to prod people but midway into Day 1 they should be discarded. It shouldn’t be permissible for players to vote randomly because it gives scum an out for not justifying their votes. I’ll tell you right now I’ll consider it scummy if people leave random votes on at the end of the day.
Now for some more substantial stuff: who to vote for…
After reading the thread over once, I’d like to get something down, though I do plan to revisit it. My biggest impression is: peekercpa, yeesh, who peed in your cornflakes? While I’ll admit you seem to be sticking your neck out pretty far for scum, you also seem a lot different from the last game - very irritable and a bit bossy, frankly.
Further, because of this, I doubt strongly you’re a power role of any significance, as I bet you’d be playing the cards closer to the vest if you were. As such, you’re a safe opening vote.
[colorblue]vote peekercpa[color]
Also, could we please get who votes for who when we get vote counts? Straight up counts are useful only to a point and it’ll come in particularly handy when we start getting a lot more voting/unvoting to see where votes actually lie.
[/QUOTE]
Crud, I am rescinding the welcome to the game (not really, though).
And, cripes noone peed in my cornflakes unless I accidentally left the back door open and a random critter waltzed in and did it in the middle of the night. Last game was my first game and for those who followed I was pretty much the town idiot for the first two days of the first Day. So I learned something - guess that translates to bad juju in your mind. Some of the more experienced players just don’t get how intimidating this game can be for folks not as seasoned. So yeh, maybe I’ve gotten a little wiser and more experienced. Can you honestly say that your freshman demeanor was not noticably different than your sophomore demeanor. The defense flippin’ rests.
Oh, and because fluiddruid is now actively participating:
Unvote fluiddruid
And if you can give me examples where I am being “bossy” I’ll certainly revisit the phrasing of any of my comments because that is certainly not the intent.
[fluff] Back from errands and dinner out
There certainly seems to be a lot of restating thoughts that have already been expressed. I suppose this is why the threads are so overwhelmingly long. Each person seems to need to take his or her turn to put into his or her own words what has already been presented. Yes, you have all demonstrated the ability to analyze every sentance uttered, but wouldn’t a simple “I agree with so and so” or “I disagree because” in 50 words or less be better?
That would make it less daunting for newbies like me to stay on top of the things. I am afraid, if I get to work and find a functioning firewall, that I will miss 3 or 4 pages of posts and never be able to catch up.
Goodness! [/fluff]
[QUOTE=Koldanar]
God you height-gifted snobs! 
It was a clarification and nothing more; I know some games in the past have allowed fluffy interactions between scum, and with it not being explicitly stated I wanted it to be clear. If they had a chance to talk at all, they can strategize, and that can give us some pattern to watch for. Kinda hoping this type of discussion is restricted to nights for them though, as that can be an extra edge too? I’m a cautious person; go ahead and look at my history. I check these things over, and I agonize over day one lynches. It’s my thing.
[/QUOTE]
And I totally agree - not a snuggle, merely coming from the mind set that I possess.
If it is not stated don’t assume it. This is a closed set up (correct term?). Gosh only knows what the rules are. I don’t know CoG888 from Adam. For all we know there could be multiple chia bingo masters (is this even close to the correct term). I am such a rententive son of a gun (I have been called much worse) that clarification seems prudent.
I make “reasonable” assumptions all the time but really feel more comfortable when the actual rule is quoted.
[QUOTE=anyrose]
[fluff] Back from errands and dinner out
There certainly seems to be a lot of restating thoughts that have already been expressed. I suppose this is why the threads are so overwhelmingly long. Each person seems to need to take his or her turn to put into his or her own words what has already been presented. Yes, you have all demonstrated the ability to analyze every sentance uttered, but wouldn’t a simple “I agree with so and so” or “I disagree because” in 50 words or less be better?
That would make it less daunting for newbies like me to stay on top of the things. I am afraid, if I get to work and find a functioning firewall, that I will miss 3 or 4 pages of posts and never be able to catch up.
Goodness! [/fluff]
[/QUOTE]
I sympathize. My first Day of Batman I had my folks down here to help me paint my master bedroom (my girlfriend chipped in a bit as well). Since I don’t get to see them often, I didn’t spend much time posting that Day. (I think my post count was 2nd lowest). It was very hard just catching up, especially since that game started with 24 people, and every non-scum was a power role of some sort, and out of 6 scum, only 2 were vanilla goons. So you have 22 power roles, one of whom was a serial killer who’s power depended upon his post count being higher than his target’s, and 2 scum goons to start the Day off. The nice thing about mafia is that it gets easier as the game goes on. More information comes out and less people are around to muddy the waters. The posts tend to be a lot more focused. Also, as you get more experienced, you’ll naturally start to feel less overwhelmed.
OK, the below has got to be the goofiest post this game for which I am not personally responsible.
[QUOTE=The Unkempt One]
I have reread this thread again, and after placing a finger of suspicion on Thing Fish, I think I am prepared to vote for him.
The first thing that pinged me about Thing Fish was how quickly he voted for anyrose as a lurker, when there was already a vote on her for lurking. (see post #97)
Post #137 sees Thing Fish talking about why he voted for anyrose,
Uh, NO IT DOESN"T. It states that my vote for anyrose was random, and points out that she started posting after I voted for her.
Post # 163:
Seems convenient that Thing Fish is going to leave himself an out (the part I bolded) if he feels that he needs to back off of his vote on anyrose. Seems too easy to me.
Are you freaking insane?? Go back and look at post 97, where I initially voted for anyrose, based on the fact that her name reminded me of roses=funerals=murder victims. That sounds to you like the kind of argument I need to lay some subtle groundwork to later back out of??
Well, I looked for all of the supposed posts where anyrose attacked Thing Fish, and I have to say that I am having a hard time finding them. However, I am going to post of list of anyrose’s posts made after **Thing Fish **voted for her, prior to his post # 163:
#116 - placed an omgus vote against Thing Fish
#120 - asked for a definition of omgus
#121 - apologized for editing
#128 - asked about randomizing votes
#135 - explained reasons for her “lurking”
#140 - commented about discussing voting strategy
#145 - suggests Fish jumped on a bandwagon (is this the attack you are talking about Thing Fish?)
#147 - says she suspects everyone
#154 - suggests Fish’s vote was not completely random
#157 - talked about editing again
**
This is actually good research work, Unkempt, thank you. In retrospect, I was overreacting to what I still think could fairly be characterized as her pissy tone, particularly in posts 135 and 154 (I thought she was actually quite nice in 145)**
It seems to me that Thing Fish is misrepresenting anyrose’s response to his vote in order to make her look scummy. So because of this, I am going to vote for him.
**
Pot, kettle.**
B]
[QUOTE=The Unkempt One]
I have reread this thread again, and after placing a finger of suspicion on Thing Fish, I think I am prepared to vote for him.
The first thing that pinged me about Thing Fish was how quickly he voted for anyrose as a lurker, when there was already a vote on her for lurking. (see post #97)
Post #137 sees Thing Fish talking about why he voted for anyrose,
Post # 163:
Seems convenient that Thing Fish is going to leave himself an out (the part I bolded) if he feels that he needs to back off of his vote on anyrose. Seems too easy to me.
Well, I looked for all of the supposed posts where anyrose attacked Thing Fish, and I have to say that I am having a hard time finding them. However, I am going to post of list of anyrose’s posts made after **Thing Fish **voted for her, prior to his post # 163:
#116 - placed an omgus vote against Thing Fish
#120 - asked for a definition of omgus
#121 - apologized for editing
#128 - asked about randomizing votes
#135 - explained reasons for her “lurking”
#140 - commented about discussing voting strategy
#145 - suggests Fish jumped on a bandwagon (is this the attack you are talking about Thing Fish?)
#147 - says she suspects everyone
#154 - suggests Fish’s vote was not completely random
#157 - talked about editing again
It seems to me that Thing Fish is misrepresenting anyrose’s response to his vote in order to make her look scummy. So because of this, I am going to vote for him.
Point #1: Post 137 does not discuss my motivations for voting for** anyrose**, it says that that was a random vote!
Point #2: Are you freaking insane?? Go back and read my original vote on** Anyrose**, post 97. I voted for her because roses=funerals=murder victims. Does that sound like the kind of case I need to be laying some subtle groundwork to later back out of???
Point #3: Misrepresenting, eh? Pot, meet kettle.
So as if things weren’t bad enough, now my posts aren’t going through??
Well, looks like only posts with quotes are getting eaten. Sorry to make you guys scroll.
Unkempt, with regard to your post 213: My post 132 (you said 137) did not "discuss my reasons for voting for anyrose, in fact it explicitly stated that the vote was random.
And then you speculate that I may be “laying groundwork in case I have to back out of” a vote I originally justified on the grounds that roses=funerals=murder victims? Are you freaking insane??
So then you vote for me because I am misrepresenting others? Pot, meet kettle.
Ugh, two more votes since I last looked…maybe I should just be trying to break Winston Smith’s record for most votes at this point.
Anyway…herewith my attempt to wiggle off the hook.
Obviously I have been too aggressive and rubbing people the wrong way. I am not sure exactly what people would have had me do when anyrose OMGUSed me; does any response at all to a random vote justify removal of the vote? In any case, contrary to BlaM’s insinuations, I do not recall that I ever criticized anyrose specifically for OMGUSing me, and I think I actually stated that I considered it a reasonable strategy on Day One. Anyway, I chose to try pushing anyrose a little harder to get her to post something of more substance, and in the process my first-game-excited, overly-caffeinated brain decided it would be a good idea to throw out some wild speculation against twicksteras well, just to make things interesting. Appears the badness of that idea will be a lesson I will take to my grave… and by the way, Unkempt, that sort of thing was what I was saying in post 163 I was willing to knock off if the more experienced players told me to, that comment had nothing to do with my vote for anyrose. This technique of coming on strong in order to see how someone responds under pressure has, in fact, been used and advocated by **Blaster Master ** in the past.
And now people are saying I encouraged people to disregard BlaM’s strategy tips? Oy. Well, if so many people are completely misinterpreting so many things that I say, I guess I need to take responsibility for stating things more clearly. Blam clearly knows a lot about the strategy of this game, and is well worth listening to for that reason. What I was advising people to be wary of is the way he goes single-mindedly after people, twisting their words to suit his agenda. He is doing it to me now, and he did it to fluiddruid last game. If he hadn’t been town in that game, I would conclude from his behavior toward me that he is probably scum…as it is, I don’t know what he thinks he’s doing, but it appears the result will be the same…a day spent largely arguing about one player, followed by a mislynch. I apologize for insinuating that all the people voting for me were overly influenced by BlaM, but it did seem that the bandwagon really started rolling once he got on it.
And now BlaM is suggesting that my changing my vote is somehow suspicious…after he had clearly stated that that is what I should do?? Not that I am trying to curry favor, I just agree with him that there was no real point to me continuing to vote for anyrose. I was about 90% sure by lunchtime Monday that I would take my vote off her, but real life intervened and I didn’t get to it until this morning. I know that length of time looks suspicious, and I get the impression not many folks are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt at this point. So it goes.
So in closing, I’m sorry that I got overexcited and was too aggressive in my first game, especially since it seems that this will hurt Town by leading to my lynch…but I’m vanilla, so it’s not that big a deal. But I think that I have at least demonstrated that I am paying attention and have some ideas, so I would ask you all to consider; is it really better for Town to lynch me now, or to take out a lurker and give me a chance to redeem myself while keeping me on a short leash?
Thing Fish, you didn’t address in this post the “don’t defend yourself” advice.
I’m going to buck the trend:
**unvote Oredigger77
vote anyrose**
Yeah, Thing Fish’s advice not to defend oneself in #116 seemed kind of scummy to me. But honestly, the way that anyrose has been essentially lurking in the foreground ever since seems even more suspicious to me. I know, she’s been posting quite a lot… but virtually all of her posts seem to either be fluff or smudges against Thing Fish.
This is what convinced me that I should change my vote:
[QUOTE=anyrose]
Thing Fish is doing *a lot * of backpeddling. That’s a sure sign of someone who cannot keep thier lies straight in their head.
[/QUOTE]
She initially voted for him as an OMGUS vote, and has since let Blaster Master do all the lifting in terms of making any case against him. The above is the sole reason she’s given to justify the vote since (in #251 she gives it to BM in response to his request for elaboration.) Two things about the post twig me the wrong way. Firstly there had been a lot of previous discussion regarding defensiveness as a null tell (ironically, in response to anyrose’s OMGUS vote) that I think she needs to address if that’s going to be her rationale. Secondly, I just don’t think that’s a fair representation of Thing Fish’s actions up to that point. He’d made, what, two posts defending himself? Considering that he already had 4 votes against him (putting him by far in the lead to be lynched) I can’t say I find that particularly unreasonable.
[QUOTE=Thing Fish]
Well, looks like only posts with quotes are getting eaten. Sorry to make you guys scroll.
Unkempt, with regard to your post 213: My post 132 (you said 137) did not "discuss my reasons for voting for anyrose, in fact it explicitly stated that the vote was random.
And then you speculate that I may be “laying groundwork in case I have to back out of” a vote I originally justified on the grounds that roses=funerals=murder victims? Are you freaking insane??
So then you vote for me because I am misrepresenting others? Pot, meet kettle.
[/QUOTE]
In post # 213 I said:
[QUOTE=The Unkempt One]
Seems convenient that Thing Fish is going to leave himself an out (the part I bolded) if he feels that he needs to back off of his vote on anyrose. Seems too easy to me.
[/QUOTE]
because in post # 163 you said:
[QUOTE=Thing Fish]
But if the more experienced players feel this sort of thing is unhelpful, I will be happy to knock it off; I have read over a few games quickly and one very carefully, but I am still a newbie.
[/QUOTE]
The above quote is what caused me to say that you were looking for an easy way out if you took too much flack for your vote. It seemed like you were willing to back down if things got too out of hand.
[QUOTE=Thing Fish]
And now BlaM is suggesting that my changing my vote is somehow suspicious…after he had clearly stated that that is what I should do?? Not that I am trying to curry favor, I just agree with him that there was no real point to me continuing to vote for anyrose. I was about 90% sure by lunchtime Monday that I would take my vote off her, but real life intervened and I didn’t get to it until this morning. I know that length of time looks suspicious, and I get the impression not many folks are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt at this point. So it goes.
So in closing, I’m sorry that I got overexcited and was too aggressive in my first game, especially since it seems that this will hurt Town by leading to my lynch…but I’m vanilla, so it’s not that big a deal. But I think that I have at least demonstrated that I am paying attention and have some ideas, so I would ask you all to consider; is it really better for Town to lynch me now, or to take out a lurker and give me a chance to redeem myself while keeping me on a short leash?
[/QUOTE]
You make some good points here, and I will admit that at this point I am going to read through the thread again and see if my original suspicions hold up. I am not so stubborn that I will not change my vote if need be. For now, my vote remains on Thing Fish, and I hope that some more people will weigh in with their opinions on the situation.
Here’s my opinion on the matter. Thing Fish may be town, but in this game so early on and someone has to be lynched he made some, in my opinion, mistakes. So I have to think where his mistakes scum or town or pure newbie mistakes.
But more important than that I have to choose someone else to lynch if I remove my vote from Think Fish. And sadly for Think Fish if he is town I found no one else to switch my vote too. His call to lynch a lurker instead is silly because everyone has made a few posts and the only person that was lurking explained that already.
Of course he could be calling me a lurker :dubious: but that would say he expects everyone to post 5 posts a real day which sadly isn’t doable by everyone, like me.
In conclusion Think Fish is where my vote will still stay unless someone else becomes a more conclusive lynch target.
anyrose pinged me with this post
The only way someone could be convinced at this juncture is if they know the person is town or a fellow scum. That quote could have been an exaggeration it still bothered me.
You know, the way you people jump on every little thing is making me regret my decision to play at all. Every freaking word is analyzed and reanalyzed and overanalyzed. Innocent comments are scrutinized. Attempts to play “in character” are torn apart.
Is this how all games go?
I played one full game and am in a second on Fathom and neither game was this vicious or petty. Is this how all Dope Mafia games go? if so, you can count me out of any others.
I will not, however, back out of this one, because I do not believe in backing out of a committment. But please feel free to lynch or murder me early.
[QUOTE=anyrose]
You know, the way you people jump on every little thing is making me regret my decision to play at all. Every freaking word is analyzed and reanalyzed and overanalyzed. Innocent comments are scrutinized. Attempts to play “in character” are torn apart.
Is this how all games go?
I played one full game and am in a second on Fathom and neither game was this vicious or petty. Is this how all Dope Mafia games go? if so, you can count me out of any others.
I will not, however, back out of this one, because I do not believe in backing out of a committment. But please feel free to lynch or murder me early.
[/QUOTE]
This is my first game as well, and I think that all of the analyzing and scrutinizing has a lot to do with this being Day one (I hope). I think that everyone is sort of grasping at straws at this point, looking for some sort of reason to justify their votes. I hope that as the days go on there will be a lot more information to go by, which should lead to some more satisfying gameplay. I do agree that this “Burn the Witch” attitude is a little disconcerting. But, at this point, townspeople (myself included) are eager to get as much info as possible. The best way to do that is to make people talk about their posts, their positions, etc…
[QUOTE=anyrose]
You know, the way you people jump on every little thing is making me regret my decision to play at all. Every freaking word is analyzed and reanalyzed and overanalyzed. Innocent comments are scrutinized. Attempts to play “in character” are torn apart.
Is this how all games go?
I played one full game and am in a second on Fathom and neither game was this vicious or petty. Is this how all Dope Mafia games go? if so, you can count me out of any others.
I will not, however, back out of this one, because I do not believe in backing out of a committment. But please feel free to lynch or murder me early.
[/QUOTE]
In the beginning, it pretty much is how all games go. The only thing most players know is who they are. Scum and Masons and sometimes other aligned groups know who their other members are, but that’s about it. Everything is scrutinized. Any gaffe can be lept on like flies to a piece of rotting meat. The reason being that there’s little else to go by.
But this so far has been nothing compared to Batman’s Day 1. It was so big that they actually had two threads. Check it out if you want to see some real insanity.
Part 1: http://psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=tempy&action=display&thread=290
Part 2: http://psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=tempy&action=display&thread=295
okay, thank you **The Unkempt One ** and Hoopy Frood, I will reserve judgement of the game as a whole until we’ve gotten into Day Two or Three.
as for this
[QUOTE=cckerberos]
This is what convinced me that I should change my vote:
She initially voted for him as an OMGUS vote, and has since let Blaster Master do all the lifting in terms of making any case against him. The above is the sole reason she’s given to justify the vote since (in #251 she gives it to BM in response to his request for elaboration.) Two things about the post twig me the wrong way. Firstly there had been a lot of previous discussion regarding defensiveness as a null tell (ironically, in response to anyrose’s OMGUS vote) that I think she needs to address if that’s going to be her rationale. Secondly, I just don’t think that’s a fair representation of Thing Fish’s actions up to that point. He’d made, what, two posts defending himself? Considering that he already had 4 votes against him (putting him by far in the lead to be lynched) I can’t say I find that particularly unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
What do you want me to say, that I had already made up my mind to vote for **Thing Fish ** when I opened the thread and saw he had voted for me? Merely stating that would leave myself open for attack. Do you want me to tell you that I had copy/pasted all the players’ names, looked them over, and threw a mental dart at the page? Neither statement is entirely true nor are they entirely false.
As for my “backpeddling” comment - the way I read the interactions between **Thing Fish ** and everyone else who jumped down his throat, he seemed to be not only defensive, but quite agitated and came close to contradicting himself in a few spots. Yes, others did the legwork, and I let them because I do not have the time during the (lowercase ‘d’) day to carefully read each sentance and pause to thinnk about them before carefully considering my response.
Gimme a freakin break already.