Since some people (Mahaloth) thought I was confusing in my apology/backtracking let me try to restate the exchange. I was originally responding to this question.
I am using the assumption that the sleeper message has successfully been transmitted to somebody not scum. If scum false claims, then somebody can contradict them. Still, I’m not thinking clearly about other possibilities and talk about people being confirmed.
After GuiriEnEspaña shows all the ways that scum could successfully false-claim, I apologize and admit I was wrong. Unfortunately I mistyped and forgot the “not” as sachertorte pointed out.
My main point still stands. If somebody who is not scum receives the sleeper message, they should claim the message. This prevents scum from counter-claiming unless they want a short life.
(Thinking about it more, two claims doesn’t confirm anyone either. If no sleeper message goes out, 2 scum could false claim. They would lose one scum with the first lynch, but the other would be confirmed as town. That’s a dangerous game to play because Town will get suspicious if the “confirmed” town survives the night, especially more than once.)
I hate voting on Day 1 because I generally have no idea. I do think somebody in the Zeriel - Mahaloth - Idle - Suburban chain is scummy. It is weird that Idle hasn’t claimed and Suburban is voting along with Idle :D, but of those 4, Mahaloth has given me the most questions.
-He jumped on me early which is not a big problem. I did think I would get pinged because of my first mistake. However, I’m at a loss for somebody voting for me because I was confusing.
Actually, I was thinking too townishly and not considering all the scummy options. This reads to me as someone trying to find an excuse and provide a back-door escape when your vote turns on you.
Ah, Pleonast is back to his multi-voting in a game that hasn’t included it. Heck, I’ll be stunned if Red counts those. Otherwise, your vote is stuck on Zeriel, I guess?
Wolverine, you are striking me as scummiest on this Day(though Pleo is the most annoying…but I expected that). I don’t believe you were thinking too townishly. I just do not buy that or see it.
Noise =/= Loud. Posting a lot is loud, but if you post stuff that actually makes sense and is logically consistent, nobody is going to vote for you just for being a prominent voice in the game.
And your poor play continues…starting with a copout reason for not having reasons of your own. It has NEVER been charming for anyone, scum or town, to sigh melodramatically and say “well, you’re all going to kill me, so I’m just not going to play anymore”.
So you’re mad at me…because I called your tactics anti-town and voted you for it? Isn’t that kinda, y’know, what I’m supposed to do?
Really, Pleo? Really?
Voting for tactical disagreement is wrong. Voting for people who espouse tactics that help scum is never wrong. Your “tactics” benefit scum more than town, your reasoning for why your “vote for self-preservers” policy isn’t one is spurious, and your martyr act is a complete null–your entire last post may as well have been a big blank.
My point is simply that your claim is meaningless. That is, it gives me no indication of your alignment whatsoever.
That said, the actual act of claiming is not meaningless. it’s taking up space and occupying conversation while providing nothing to the hunt for Scum.
Here’s an analogy:
I could walk around saying, “I have a big dick.” I could do this all day long, but until my dick is actually revealed or investigated, no one will really know the size of my dick. It’s a meaningless statement.
Now, I could walk up to a police detective who is investigating a crime scene and say, “I have a big dick.” The statement carries no additional meaning, but the fact that I did so is hindering his investigation and as such, carries some meaning.
Missed that the first time around. That makes the sleeper situation a little nicer than it I thought it was.
But here’s the thing: he’s not just advocating an incorrect strategy, he’s offering a scummy strategy. He’s advocating that townies roll over and die rather than try to save themselves, a great position for scum. Often, the guy who dies isn’t even the scummiest, but the guy who doesn’t defend himself, and if Pleo engenders that situation, it’s party time for the scumbuddies. He has repeatedly said that townies should die*, which is really hard to interpret as non-scummy.
*Specifically, that they should die if they can provide the town with even the smallest speck of information, which is all kinds of wrong.
That is a textbook dodge, Pleo. You have completely forgotten to mention the fact that you also proposed a really controversial policy at the same time you claimed. To insinuate that your lack of heat because of your roleclaim is because of your explanation for your roleclaim only is suspicious, because it’s untrue and it draws attention away from said controversial policy in regards to your actions.
That’s enough. By proposing the actions, you are engendering pro-scum behavior among the players and have given yourself an “out” for future Days.
Oh that.
At least I haven’t managed to inadvertently call Pleonast stupid.
Hi Storyteller
Actually, I’ve seriously debated voting for Pleonast. The problem is if I did so it would be tactically incorrect for this game and would be purely for punitive reasons. I’m >>this<< close to doing it anyway though.
(1) With a lack of anything else WTF right?
(2) In the continuum of games it makes a statement. Part of me wants to lynch Pleonast EVERY time he pulls stuff like this (yes, I’m feeling vindictive today, why do you ask?) in the hope that he will eventually stop. In otherwords, it might be tactically wrong for this game, but for the sanity of future games, it might be worth it.
As tempting as voting for Pleonast would be. I’d rather re-read and find something else shiny. But that will have to wait for the morning.
I’m content not voting right now. If I were voting, it would be on Pleonast. However, I don’t want to contribute to his lead being even more insurmountable. It would take away my sick joy in seeing some self-preservation votes.
You know, sach, I’m glad someone owned up to feeling that way, because I completely agree with everything you just said. Except for the part that it’s tactically wrong for this game. I don’t necessarily think it is, because I think he’s said the scummiest things in the thread. But I do think at least a portion the votes for Pleonast are for punitive reasons. If you do things that annoy the shit out of other players, you’re going to get votes. Almost everyone who has been the target of such things in the past has made fundamental changes to their gameplay that not only makes them better players, but makes everyone else enjoy the game more as well. If Pleonast admitted that he was wrong and altered his gameplay, I’d bet a lot of people would stop voting for him. Instead, he sticks to his guns and goes down in flames, and if he’s claiming truly, he’s hurting my team by doing so. And if his claim is true he also KNOWS he’s hurting Town, which is what I think drives everyone crazy. You may have principles and ideas that you like to stick to, but the point of the game is WINNING, not avoiding concession at all costs.
I have no problem with a Pleo lynch both for the reasons sach has listed and also because of the possibilities regarding his claim.
Option 1: He is vanilla town and is claiming truthfully. Well, at least we are not losing any power roles and we have a 20% chance that he is a sleeper, so we would deprive the scum of an extra teammate.
Option 2: He is scum and is lying. Obviously this would be the best if he is lynched.
Option 3: He is town power role and is lying. While I do think there can be cases for pro-town lying, an unforced claim right out of the gate is not one of them. This would be a tremendously bad play on his part and he should expect to be lynched for it.
Option 4: He is the Serial Killing Bomber. This would probably be the worst play possible on his part, but it would be good for us.
And Pleo, while your policy of voting for self-preservation voters is getting most of the discussion, my vote on you is at least as much for the unnecessary claim as it is for the policy.
All that said, I would rather vote for something that I think might point to actual scum rather than the annoying play of Pleo. The only thing that I have seen that has really seemed like that is the Septimus posts that were pointed out by Tom Scud. So I will
You’re willing to put a vote on Septimus without waiting to hear from him? Did you actually read his posts? When I did, it did make me less susicious. in his first post discussing Pleo, Septimus clearly states his suspicion, yet is hesitant to vote. Not uncommon for a newer player as he claims to be. Then he does cast a vote later in the Day.
to me, it struck me more as:
I’m not ready to vote for Pleo, but he’s obviously suspicious.
to
OK, I’ll vote for Pleo since nothing else has come up.
It looks like a “me too” vote to me. I guess technically it’s a “me too…and I don’t understand your explanation” vote. But unless you are trying to make a case that “things that **Mahaloth **doesn’t understand” == “Scum tells”, I don’t see how that is an argument for placing a vote on someone.
