The thought process behind this vote made me giggle but I dislike the idea of voting for a player you simply did not understand. Is the vote intended as a poke to make Wolverine explain what he meant or do you think he’s scummy for seemingly being confident that anyone who claims to have been targeted for recruitment is confirmed town?
On Pleonast, I dislike unforced claims but usually consider them a null-tell. In this particular game, due to the recruitment mechanism, I consider the claim anti-town. I also dislike the policy vote for anyone who makes a self-defense vote, it is also anti-town, leaning scummy, as I can see a scum motivation for making an easily defensible policy vote however Pleo has a different point of view: he sees the self-defense vote as scummy and I’m not going to vote someone based on a difference of opinion. FWIW I also disagree with his policy of lynching whoever hammers - fortunately there’s only 1 Pleo and 20 others.
I re-read the sleeper exchange and I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. I think the offending post is here:
Based on context Wolverine clearly meant to say “You’re right that somebody that posts the message is [not] confirmed.” Earlier than the quoted post Wolverine opined that those who receive the sleeper message are not scum. OAOW responded and pointed out that scum could not recruit and claim to have gotten the sleeper message. Then Wolverine responds with the quoted post where he clearly states that he was wrong earlier. His mistake is leaving out the “not,” which to me is no big deal, but the mistake led to much confusion and gnashing of teeth.
I still agree that the Town sleeper will need to judge whether claiming is good or not, but based on this post by Red it seems that scum can attempt to awaken a sleeper even after the sleepers have been affected. Thus a report of “I got the sleeper message” after a no message night could be a fake attempt. In other words, the Town sleeper must account for Town accurately knowing when the scum sleeper was awakened when considering claiming or not claiming.
It probably isn’t as dire as I’m making it out to seem. It’s just that I figured this out and thought we all should be aware of it. In truth, as long as we keep getting “I got the sleeper message” without an unaccounted night, then we can still assume no recruitment has taken place. The problem only arises if we have a no claim Night followed by claims. We can deal with it later.
Sleeper Awakening is the last action to resolve. Killing the other sleeper will turn the first into a survivor before it can be turned into scum (At least if I’m reading Red’s order of action resolution post correctly).
yaknow this is a pretty good point that doesn’t seem to be addressed.
i mean pleo is doing what he is doing and setting policy because he feels that helps town. but a lot of what he seems to argue is that by not following policy then suspicions can be muddled if not even ignored. isn’t that to a great extent what he is doing? i mean where do his suspicions lie (other than on someone who votes to save themselves). i don’t think he has voted and near as i can tell i don’t see anyone that he seems to be suspicous of.
So, you suspect Wolverine is scum who is attempting to convince the rest of us that a claim of a failed recruitment attempt means the claimant is confirmed Town so we all blindly agree and ignores any alternative scenarios therefore allowing him and his fellow scum buddies false claim and gain Townie cred in the process? Or he was just mistaken and the mistake says nothing of his alignment?
And if he gave a clearer, more articulate explanation, you would not have voted him?
The scum team may attempt to awaken a sleeper on any Night, the only exception being Night 0. There are no other restrictions on the use of this power (ETA: Nights only).
I seemed to have come to an oversight on my part.
Here is the order of resolution of Day Actions:
Lynch
Dead Man’s Switch (triggers bomb detonation, anyone targeted who is alive dies at this point).
Triggered Sleeper Awakening (by death of other sleeper).
The jailer does not have a Day Action. The jailer has a power restriction on his or her Night Action requiring early submission of target.
The sleepers start the game as Town and will be revealed on death as such, unless their alignment changes.
If a sleeper dies during the resolution of night actions, the other sleeper would become a survivor before any actions later on the Nightly Order would be processed and after the conclusion of the current action, ie simulataneous unawakened sleeper death results in both dying as town.**
Dude, it’s an early Day One vote. It’s not the strongest in the world, but it wasn’t a “me too” either.
I think his comment may have come out of his own knowledge of who is Town and that his statement could be the result of him not thinking “townishly”. Not an attempt to cause us to blindly agree.
If he had explained better or clearer and I was satisfied, yeah, I’d unvote him.
Day 1 Vote Tally
Pleonast(7) :Zeriel[162], Mental Guy[187], Drain Bead[202], Gadarene[208], septimus[212], pedescribe[216], peekercpa[230]
Mahaloth(2) :Idle Thoughts[159], Suburban Plankton[217]
Wolverine(1) :[del]Zeriel[137-162][/del], Mahaloth[147]
One and Only Wanderers(0) :[del]pedescribe[138-216][/del]
Did Not Vote:Wolverine,Manwich,Astral Rejection,storyteller0910,Tom Scud,Pleonast,One and Only Wanderers,ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies,special ed,guiri,sachertorte
As much as I’ve been trying to set Pleo aside for now, I cannot deny that he is a very prickly pear that is hard to ignore. Annoyance, frustration, and disagreement together are a powerful and volatile trifecta on a Day when there is little to go on. For me, the nail in the coffin was his exchange with me here:
Up until that point, it seemed like the whole debate might very well just boil down (yet again) to semantics, and that if Pleo was using a very specific definition for the behavior that he found suspect while others were using the term very generally, that all sorts of misunderstanding and paranoia might ensue. But then his response just attempts to spin the criticism into a double standard. He’s advocating a mechanical vote policy while admonishing mechanical vote policy.
Vote Pleo
Onto other matters…
I did not view Wolverine’s statements as nefariously as Zeriel and Mahaloth apparently did, and it does ping me as potentially opportunistic, but I don’t really see how Zeriel comes out smelling any better than Mahaloth in the whole exchange, just because he voted first?
Normally I try to be the one who makes an early-day vote on whatever suspicions I can get, because I have found that doing so can “shake the tree” so to speak and get some discussion going.
As it happened, Pleo got that done all by his lonesome–but then again, we will have to have SOMETHING else to talk about tomorrow, too.
Anyone who hasn’t voted by now needs to weigh in. It is, in my opinion, generally scummy to end the day with no votes out.
I’m finding the whole Pleonast thing an enormous null tell; I think he’s pretty much wrong on all counts, but I don’t see any reason why his wrongness is inconsistent with his play as a town player in other games.
I was tempted to go after sachertorte for playing kick-the-Pleonast but not voting for him, but then I remembered the bitter bitter argument sach and story (both of them Town in that game) carried on for multiple days in On Cecil Pond Mafia.
I hate it when we get into the rut of finding an annoying player and turning the entire Day 1 conversation into how annoyed everyone is at that player, because scum can hide pretty much anywhere; feigning annoyance but not voting; feigning annoyance and voting; defending the guy they know is going to flip Town (which is what I did, vis-a-vis peeker, in the game where I was scum); and so on. If Pleo flips Town (as I think is likely, based on the odds and on the fact that I have a null tell on him), it’s going to be hard to extract any information from the day’s lynch.
That said, in my third re-read looking for anything, anything at all, I did notice this:
So, if Pleo votes now, would we consider that vote to be in self-preservation? I mean, unless he votes for himself.
My opinion is that Day 1 has been typical. I’ve seen the usual types of comments I would expect out of the players that I know. I did note Zeriel looking for support for his vote after making it. It seems reasonable enough though.
On preview. Tom has made a case that seems interesting on initial view. I’m going to check into it, and maybe d a full re-read.
So what? Either of those is better than a vote defended by “I know I’m town and they’re not”. Better in the sense of giving us something to evaluate.
This is bizarre. The whole point of the game of mafia is looking at players’ explanations and judging them scummy or not. Are you really saying I should not be allowed to do that?
If my vote against a would-be self preservationist forces them to make a final vote where they actually have to give a reason other than “voting that player keeps me from being lynched”, then I will have made my point.
Since I am arguing players should vote for who they find suspicious, rather than simply voting to save themselves from the lynch, I am in agreement with you.
sach, you’re arguing against things I’ve never said. Really. Go back and read.
You say you’re against “policy” votes. Players who vote simply to save themself from the lynch, without expressing any reason other than that player has an unknown alignment and also is close to being lynched are performing a policy vote. Scum an easily make such a vote, with the excuse “everyone wants to survive”. That kind of vote gives us absolutely no information about the self-preservationist’s motives.
That is why I am against letting that kind of vote continue to slide by.
You keep saying that, but I’m not sure how me explaining why I am making a vote gives you less information about me.
Unfortunately, I do not know who my teammates are. There is no one I can coordinate with. I do know what are good tactics and what are not. I will go with that rather than trust an unknown team.
If a player has claimed, my decision to vote them or not is based on how I interpret the claim. In your case, I never interpreted your claim, being both scum and dead.
In general, if a power role believes their power is more important than the life of another townie, then they should preserve their own life. As always with power roles, they are the best deciders of their own actions.
I’ve tried my claim without giving an explanation. I’ve tried my claim with multiple explanations. Either way, players jump all over me. This time I claimed with a brief explanation and there’s been little to no reaction. Which is my intent.
And here’s your insinuation about my intent. Unless I’m misunderstanding you and you’re actually referring to peeker’s typically garbled posts. Please clarify.
This tired argument: so-and-so is posting too much and is preventing us from talking about something else. Sorry, this is a not a simplex medium where only one player can talk at time. The topics of discussion are the responsibility of everyone. If you want to talk about something, do so, no one can prevent you.
Bwahaha! While a few of us actually adhere to not voting over tactical disagreements, a quick survey of any recent games will show that it is still quite common.
Take the votes on Pleonast in this game, for example. What have I actually done? I’ve explained about something I don’t like and think is worth voting for. Have I actually done it? Nope.
What we have here are players not finding anything to vote for and falling back on lynch whoever’s is talking about (not actually doing, mind you) a tactic they disagree with. Or in your case, lynch the loudest.
Can you at least give us a fig-leaf of an argument for your vote?
Wow, an actual pro-town vote on me! I’ve been spending my time trying to explain myself and haven’t found anyone particular suspicious yet. I’ll remedy that shortly.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Anyway, I guess there’s no point in discussing reasons for my votes, since I get attacked for doing so. Before I’ve even made the vote. But I’ll carry on despite the poor play.
vote Zeriel for voting for me (162) for voicing tactics they think are not pro-town. vote MentalGuy for voting for me (187) for stating a policy they believe is a null tell. vote DrainBead for voting for me (202) for being loud. vote Gadarene for voting for me (208) for having an anti-town position. vote pedescribe for voting for me (216) for no stated reason at all.
(Yay! The rules don’t forbid multivotes.) Yep, it looks like our group is back to its old vote for tactical disagreements and a bit of lynch the loud. Good job, team! :rolleyes:
But I’ll carry on despite the poor play.