well the way i look at it is that there are three posibilites.
1> he’s telling the truth - he’s marginally helping scum
2> he’s town but is a power - he’s farking with scum for what he perceives to be a town benefit.
3> he’s scum and lying through his teeth - he really hasn’t accomplished jack
so he is either telling the truth, lying/midirecting for what he perceives to be town benifit or he’s a lying scum. i don’t see how this absolves him of anything. so following up on your next post if he is lying in one case he feels that it is helpful overall to town (and pleo if that is not accurate feel free to correct me) or he’s scum which would not be unexpected. ipso fucto, it doesn’t mean doodly squat to me. my two cents and, of course, ymmv.
Very few people are focusing on the claim portion of the Pleonast show. I think it was only me and maybe one or two other players. More people are focusing on the policy votes for players who attempt self-preservation. Do you think that conversation is meaningless as well, or is it important to hash this out now?
What the Pleonast show is doing (and I consider myself among the guilty here as well) is distracting nearly everyone from voting. If I recall correctly, we have only one full RL day until the end of Day, and very few votes are out. This is going to lead to a last-minute scramble to vote, with a potential flurry of roleclaims, as all we’ve been doing all day is attempting to show Pleonast that he’s wrong, an activity that is becoming nearly as futile as attempts to nail Jello to a tree. And that’s probably the most anti-Town thing that’s come from his actions so far, and he should have easily foreseen it.
I’ll be the first to mention that I’ve been burned many times by voting for people who made bad gameplay decisions. But Pleonast has been around long enough to know that this is the case, and that our general reticence to vote for people based on strategy disagreements could keep him alive. Which, if he’s the Godfather, is a very smart strategy (and one that, as I recall, Red Skeezix employed in Harry Potter). I’m not seeing a better option at this point, and I want to get a vote down while we still have time to discuss it…and given that I’m at a seminar all afternoon and won’t have access to check the thread, now’s the time.
A couple things have occurred to me as I have finally had a chance to reread the day.
First, the discussion since **Pleonast’s **first post (149) has shifted to me almost completely focused on his claim and his stance concerning self-preservation posts. Even since he has temporarily left the thread, the rest of the folks are continuing this discussion. In general, I think that a single player monopolizing the discussion in this manner is a ‘bad thing’. In this case it’s only Day 1, so there’s less ‘damage’ because there’s not exactly a lot do discuss, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
Second, I find myself feeling the same way as Idle does here
This only scares me a little bit, since we attempted to lynch each other in the last 2 games and were both Town each time.
Nobody is standing head and shoulders above the rest as a lynch candidate at the moment. I’m going to go back and look at what was going on before **Pleo **joined in and the whole thread went sideways, and see if there’s anything there…
No, I don’t. A discussion of strategy is often useful. However, I will concede that sometimes it’s more effective to argue with a Jell-o adorned tree than to argue with Pleonast.
For the record, I stand with the group that feels that the Pleonast policy is not a helpful approach to winning the game for Town.
Both of these seem to me to be good reasons to maintain my vote.
Regarding Idle’s vote: So what, now the second vote is suspicious? I thought it was the third vote that’s scummy.
Regarding voting patterns in general: I am a firm believer that voting early and often is the best policy. I make it a policy to vote on Day One for the first person who’s remotely scummy in my eyes, and from then on to always have a vote on the person I think is most likely to be scum–obviously this strategy can change towards Day’s end when voting strategy (picking the scummiest of two close vote leaders, for example) becomes relevant. This keeps me accountable for my suspicions, and gives me a focal point for my contributions to the discussion for that day.
It’s not really applicable on Day One, but as the game goes on, I find myself increasing in suspicion of people who have no vote declared until relatively late in the day. Especially if you are quiet or contributing only in superficial ways, it’s a potential way for scum to hide in plain sight by seeing how the winds are blowing before they vote.
I expressly don’t think everyone should follow any of these strategies. I think it ultimately helps town when we have a semi-unified strategy/purpose but a competing ecosystem of complementary strategies operating–it gives scum fewer places to hide if we’re all looking on different paths, provided those paths all generally point to “finding scum” instead of “off in the weeds”.
Food for thought (and a strategy discussion that doesn’t involve Pleo).
I’m voting for Pleonast for the same reasons as Drain Bead and MentalGuy – they (and sachertorte) have articulated very well why Pleo’s position is anti-Town, and this early on I don’t feel the need to try to restate what they’ve said into my own words and labor to add value to the discussion. If folks want to get on me for a “me too” vote, so be it.
I also expressed my discomfort with Pleo’s early role-claiming at length in LOTR Mafia – was the first one to do so, in fact, so it’s not like my stance is coming out of thin air.
My vote stands on its merits, but it’s comforting to know that I’m not alone. I’m also indirectly responding to Pleo’s accusation that I was ACTUALLY voting for him to suppress strategy discussion by pointing out I’m not the only one who sees these exact things.
I’m suspicious of Pleonast – he objects to votes which “don’t provide information”, yet proposes to apply his own automatic lynching rule, which will therefore provide no information. A rule, no less, that would allow scum to jump on a bandwagon against a Townie with no justification other than “he tried self-preservation.” I hope a growing bandwagon doesn’t curtail discussion but
Vote Pleonast
Let me try a new topic. Has anyone applied Sexton point count to sleepers? Here’s my first stab, probably with much error.
If one of the sleepers is night-killed or lynched, the other becomes a survivor. Worth 0 Sexton points? If so, 1 less than a vanilla Town.
If instead a sleeper is recruited, he becomes Scum (-4.5 Sexton), the other Town Doc (3 Sexton), -1.5 net, 3.5 less than two Vanilla Towns. (So Scum may have big incentive to awaken sleeper, rather than wasting their shot, just for a fake recruit-attempt claim.)
Once awakened, the net Town value of sleepers is 1 less than vanilla in the most likely case, and 3.5 in the less likely case. Call it 0.5 net value for the 2 sleepers.
Do the Sexton points balance?
-6.5 … 1 scum roleblocker
-7 … 1 scum godfather
-9 … 2 scum vanilla
+0.5 … 2 sleepers
0?? … 1 deranged bomber
+4 … 1 town cop
+2? … 1 town jailer
+2.5 … 1 town vigilante
+7.5 … 3 town masons
+8 … 8 vanilla town
22.5 for scum, 24.5 for Town. But this is my first attempt at counting Sexton points. Help wanted please.
People still use a point system sometimes? I was always of the opinion that the point system was mostly useless since:
We never know what every role does (because they could be changed/patented by the mod–not including secret/unknown/one-time powers only known by the player themselves) and
There’s always so many different circumstances in a game that I’d think the numbers would constantly change.
As I implied, as a Mafia novice, I’ve never used a point count system before. I did it now just to see the Doc-vs-Scum number and to try to guess whether Scum is likely to waste an opportunity for “Arise, Chicken!” I conclude they won’t … unless they think Townies are gullible enough to accept a recruit-attempt claim as confirming Town.
Another reason I posted is: I’m confident I made mistakes in the analysis; I hope for corrections which will help me fight my ignorance.
The point system is a very basic rule of thumb. That doesn’t discount its occasional usefulness–and I think **septimus **is right that the scum will have to think hard about faking recruitment because pulling it off is significantly more beneficial to them than losing a sleeper through accident or attrition.
^Would have done that earlier, but I forgot that these are 4-day Days, not 5-day Days.
Secondly: Regarding the sleepers. Remember that before they’re affected, they were vanilla town. So if you try to calculate the effect of a recruitment, you have to subtract 5.5, and add 2, so it’s worse than you think, septimus. That said, I think this is a conversational dead end, since the point of looking at points (from the players’ perspective) is to figure out the setup, and we already know the setup.
For similar reasons as those give by Idle made in Post 159.
I think **Zeriel **and **Mahaloth **are both making bad votes. Since when is “misunderstanding an unusual game mechanic” a Scum tell? But at least **Zeriel **pretty much admitted as that (“I think that’s as good a place to focus early suspicions as any.”) and has since changed his vote. **Mahaloth **made what amounted to a “me too” vote, which struck me the wrong way as soon as I read it.
I’m not sure what to think about the **Pleonast **case. I can’t fault anyone for voting for him, because I think his arguments are horrible…but I can’t really give anybody too much credit if he does turn out to be Scum, because he is being consistent with the stance he has taken in previous games, so I really think all his pronouncements are a null tell.
The more I think about Pleonast, what concerns me much more than what he said is what he didn’t say. That is, he hasn’t said anything about the goings-on in this game. He started out with his by-now-traditional Vanilla claim, and he reiterated his stance on self-preservation votes, and made a few comments about the setup, but had no comment on anything that actually happened in the game itself. He then spent the rest of the day arguing about his earlier statements, and then announced he would be away from the game today (Wednesday).
Hopefully he will be back to make some sort of contribution to the discussion soon. it would be nice to have some relevant content to consider, rather than being restricted to only making ‘policy-based votes’.
You are way off. Wolverine seemed to think that if someone claims that they received the “arise chicken” message, we can assume they are town. His weak and confusing explanation did not satisfy me, so my vote remains.
I did NOT make a me too vote at all. At all. I explained my vote.
Point of clarification: we know the setup, but we also know there are three options for the way the sleepers resolve:
At beginning, sleepers are worth 2 points as vanilla townies.
Option 1: If neither sleeper is killed and neither is recruited, they stay town: 2 town points
Option 2: If one sleeper is killed before either is recruited, the other becomes a survivor: 1 town points in aggregate (since the sleeper prior to killing functioned as vanilla his/her entire lifespan, s/he is scored as such. Lose a vanilla, gain a survivor (as 0))
Option 3: If one sleeper is recruited before either is killed, he becomes scum and the other becomes a doctor: -3.5 town points in aggregate (lose two vanilla, add doc, subtract scum).
Obviously, this means that scum get a huge net gain if they manage to succeed in recruitment. Therefore, we can modify our perceptions of their willingness to screw with the recruitment message vs. the large tangible gain they get from recruiting successfully early.
I think you’d be on firmer ground if the risks of said unusual game mechanic hadn’t been already under discussion BEFORE **Wolverine’s **post. Given the situation, that came across as either skimming (anti-town) or attempting to downplay the risks (anti-town).
