It looked like a fun role too, I was looking forward to seeing where you went with it.
I presume the time for substitutions has passed? OK, then, I’ll sit this one out.
And Red Skeezix might think he’s doing Town a favor by outing himself right now, but he’s really not. A serial killer outing himself basically completely destroys the voting record for the day, since everyone’s going to vote for him. OK, granted, the vote was swinging pretty heavily against him anyway, but that would have at least have gotten people looking (one way or the other) at the people who voted differently.
I’m also not sure that his keeping mum about his targets really helps Town. With by far the most important Town role already dead, potentially outing Town power roles won’t hurt as much. What might help, though, would be if he waits for any Doctor-type roles to claim, and then corroborates their claims of who they protected, since that could give Town a confirmed (admittedly a confirmed early in the game doesn’t help much, but this is a now-or-never situation).
Something really weird is going on with Red. Either he’s bored with the game and playing this straight (in which case we were ironically trying to kill him for entirely the wrong reason: omi wasn’t trying to save him) or he’s actually scum aligned and our initial analysis holds. I’m feeling the latter, but presumably his flip won’t be ambiguous and removes the point.
The only thing that would tempt me to believe a real scum would try a fake 3rd party claim is the neatness of omi defending red and red defending twil. If all were scum, the pantsh-ing on the private board might lead to very strange conclusions.
Perhaps the mafia knew who the third parties were? Wouldn’t be unprecedented. Or perhaps there are more 3rd parties? Not another all serial killer game…
Mahaloth, I’ll take some spoilage, please. I’ve played in enough games now (not here, obviously) that my inner Dungeon Master is calling me to create one, so now I want to try following one from the omniscient perspective. I suspect that, as with tabletop gaming, it’s significantly different to watch it progress than it is to analyze it after the fact.
When is the current day ending? It must have been mentioned in the game thread, but I’ve been having eye trouble and don’t want to re-read a bunch of posts to find the info.
Day 3 will end on Thursday at noon Eastern
And on thinking about it, the loss of Harry meaning a loss of a game day isn’t actually as bad as it looks at first glance. The moderators presumably planned on most individuals dying eventually, anyway, so having the mechanic works out about the same as the Scum having one bonus kill.
Sign and grumble. That seems like a long time to wait now that it seems certain who will be lynched. Unless someone else actually claims scum I can’t see many people switching their votes, and since there’s little to debate or strategize over with regard to this kill it should be easy for the scum to keep from giving anything away this round. But since Jimmy Chitwood is trying to pump Red Skeezix for some last-minute info then I guess it’s best that the day not end immediately.
I could have totally posted more on Day One and I was on vacation!
I will include my response to Rysto here for posterity:
I would encourage all players to consider that the other players ARE thinking about their actions. In Cecil Pond I was the whistleblower on the masons outing themselves. I thought about the pros and cons for quite a while before pointing that out thank-you-very-much.
- The Mason voting spree was obvious. That scum were lazy is incidental.
- I was in the set of possible masons. In other words, I knew that if there was another mason in the isolated set, there was also a non-mason (me). Pretending to be ‘mad’ at being outed was a play at protecting the last mason.
Just because things work out a certain way doesn’t mean people aren’t being careful and thoughtful of their actions.
On the balance Rysto’s comments boil down to “think about your actions” which is always true.
Trying to explain when Town should reveal information and when they shouldn’t is a tricky venture. There is no “rule” or easy guide. It’s too easy to point out after the fact what someone should have done. Everyone has to play with the information and situation at hand and just do their best. Sometimes hiding information is best; sometimes revealing it is best; sometimes there is hidden information that flips what is best.
I don’t disagree with the modkill, the rules were clearly stated; warnings issued.
But over the past several months I’ve begun to question the necessity of the no-edit rule itself. SDMB self imposes an edit window. Past that window, you can’t edit anyway. I’ve wondered what the benefits of editing is. I suppose the most egregious would be if someone accidentally posted something that revealed themselves to be scum, but would it really be so bad if that player caught the mistake and changed it? It certainly isn’t gamebreaking.
The only thing I could see is if people tried to communicate privately via edits at a quiet time. Rather risky in my opinion, and I don’t see how scum or town could exploit it to great effect. Of course, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t. I’m simply just not aware of a method at this time.
Oh, I thought of something, but I don’t see how it could be coordinated. A hidden Cop, could communicate investigations to an out mason by posting information, then erasing it at an odd hour when no one else is online. Difficult to coordinate, but not inconceivable. It would have to happen by chance (both online alone at the same time and understanding of the situation). Anyway, while dropping the no-edit rule might have some drawbacks, I can’t think of what they are. I don’t think they would be major, and if something interesting were to happen, I think it would be entertaining in and of itself.
If I had the time and game investment, I would look back at all edited posts and see who did what. Apparently whoever edited prior to Mad-Eye Moody is TOWN!
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the Order of the Phoenix are using an unforgivable curse as the lynch mechanism? That’s so wrong!
I’m not a big fan of a no-editing rule (I prefer to let the players themselves punish it as they see fit, since most uses of edits would favor the Scum more than Town), but if it’s in place, it needs to be enforced.
And I must say I’m surprised by Red– I actually believed his claim (I still would have killed him for it, though). Claiming serial killer seems like an awfully big risk for a Godfather to take. I mean, obviously, it didn’t dissuade anyone from lynching him, and it wouldn’t even have a chance of exposing other power roles.
Although there was one point about his claim that didn’t hold up. If his claim were honest, then he presumably started the game with a list of exactly which children were in the game, and could have used that information to construct a plausible false claim that wouldn’t be counterclaimed. In other words, he was probably lying, since if he were telling the truth, he would have lied. Moot, of course.
I think Red’s play reveals a certain level of frustration with the game. I’ve only been scum once, and it was a long time ago, but I found it significantly more stressful. He had a teammate not only get herself killed but implicated him in the process. He couldn’t even claim cop since the cop was already dead, which is supposed to be a good thing.
The one thing that would make me laugh is if Cap turned out to be scum too. During the Day One exchange I thought Red was being opportunistic, but then Cap dissembled pretty darn quick which made me more suspicious of Cap. It really confused me as to what was going on. It would be so funny if all three were scum. Unfortunately for Cap, the Omi vote while protective of Red, could still be protective since Red was presumably the Godfather.
I thought Red’s claim was pretty weird too. It screamed lynch me, which made me think it was true. I thought he was lying about his win-condition. He claimed a werewolf from a source where werewolves turn wizards into werewolves! I thought he was a recruiter or a mad bomber.
Red’s claim in Cecil Pond insured his death too, so at least he’s consistent.
Snickers did, the player LPN replaced :P. So really this is a repeat offense by mad eye. Incorrigible!
After realizing that the handy find feature makes searching for edits trivial, I agree that Snickers edited, but he did so after being replaced.
Someone else did the deed
Rysto
You’d expect this crap from Rufus Scrimgeour, you know, not Moody! :mad: 
Yeah but my claim in Cecil Pond was not designed to get me killed, that was me being dumb and forgetting about the vig claim that story had made. :smack:
Despite the fact that I was lying about my role. This isn’t necessarily so, since moderators (often in strictly canonical, or all power games) will sometimes provide cover identities that cannot be counterclaimed. It’s one way that you can run a game against canon and have the game not be broken from a mass role/name claim.
I also addressed this point by affecting a “I’m sick of this shit” attitude which would tend to cause people to think I hadn’t even considered claiming falsely.
Red Skeezix, if you don’t mind my asking, what was the point of your false claim? I’ve been wondering if you thought your character’s power would protect your true identity even in death. Otherwise I can’t see any benefit to it, unless you were just having fun messing with people once it was obvious you were going to be lynched.
This is the first Mafia game I’ve followed for a while, and I sure did pick an unusual one!