Well, that response seems reasonable. At this point I think that ushi will end up swinging but aside from his spat with ed I haven’t got a read on him. I think that he vote for ed was an OMGUS so once Scuba became ed that was not longer valid and he moved his vote.
Plankton’s explanation is plausible, at least. I’ll switch my vote once I find something more compelling to vote for.
I don’t know about anyon esle, but I’m sticking a pin in the posts of players advancing the ‘gotcha’ angle on Suburban’s pronoun post for further review later. It just smacks of opportunism to me, and not necessarily in a pro-town manner. And it adds a +1 to the overall metagaming vibe I’m still getting from this game.
I am truly conflicted about ushi, and I was in agreement with not picking on sore spots and trying to give new players some slack and benefit of the doubt, but the unvote really stands out when juxtaposed with his other posts. From what I’ve seen so far, I would expect him to rail against someone using such a justification for an unvote.
On the other hand, I don’t know him and his playstyle well enough to know if he is that stubborn about not wanting to admit personal motivations may have been involved that he’d come up with creative ways to try and diffuse things (like a “I don’t carry-over votes to subs policy”) so as to remove his vote without having to admit that personal motivations may have been involved.
On the third hand, that’s exactly the metagame sludge that I think is already too prevalent around here.
Cookies, can you describe exactly what you mean by “metagaming”? It seems to be different from how I use the term. To me, metagaming is using out-of-this-game information to make in-this-game decisions. Things like tracking when a player is online, or using information from other games.
Trying to interpret motivations for posts made in this game is pretty much the opposite of metagaming. Like your thoughts about ushi–that’s simply gaming. Good gaming, since it’s what we should all be doing.
And asking and voting for a player who apparently had information before it was generally available is also not metagaming. I slightly dumbfounded why you think pursuing it might not be pro-town. Information from an unknown source is always worth discussion.
While I don’t actually think that ushi has been demonstrating good Town play, it looks to me like it’s more bad by virtue of inexperience than bad by intent. There’s only so far one can extend this, of course, and newbie Scum can and do play the newbie card, but it’s still not all that strong a case.
Keep in mind, the votes on ushi are Day one votes. They’re not exactly rock solid cases by nature.
I held off on my vote until I heard his explanation for unvoting. His explanation didn’t satisfy me, hence the vote. I’m just slightly more suspicious of him than my next candidate.
I don’t really consider it metagaming, but I do agree that those that jumped on Suburban might merit further review. Drain Bead has developed the theory that players that point out PISes are often scum and I think it has some good logic behind it. It is after all an easily justifiable vote, which is what scum really like. So this, along with the fact that Pleo did not claim at the beginning of the game (going against his recent M.O.), makes me suspicious of him.
Well I gave my reasons, I can re-iterate them: 1) it fits in with my expectation 2) it fits in with how my character has been named. This isn’t the totality of argument, just it’s two most basic points.
Whilst plenty have disagreed with my argument, no-one has yet to offer anything convincing on how it could be beneficial to scum.
Well hold on no. If someone argues against it and then is forced to make claim (at least on how their character has been named) that, I think, is revealing.
Yes I am still figuring out how to play the game, BUT I feel I should play it the way I feel right. Yes listen to what others say, but remember at the same time they could be scum.
I do not honestly understand why anyone would suggest I am not a newbie as I stated such before roles had been assigned. What general advantage (i.e. one that would be beneficial to someone playing either as scum or town could be gained from pretending to be a newbie? Has anyone ever done this before? No-one casting aspersions on my ‘newbie status’ has mentioned that this has happened in their experince.
Can I ask you to elaborate? Are you asking me for example to drop the naming topic?
If we had did as I suggested I would not lynch anyone on the basis of what they revealed. That may change later with more information, but the purpose of my plan was in order to establish whether not my idea was correct, not to identify lynching targets.
Normally I don’t bother engaging in futile exercises, but…
Concerning the un-vote, I’ll say it again for the 3rd-4th time:
- I’m not going to vote for players I haven’t heard from.
Here’s the thing about that: If we were playing some serious RPG where “meta” was verboten, then seperating out the player and the role would be one thing. But, this is an environment where bringing up what some player did 5 games ago on some other board is presented as high strategy.
To then turn around and suggest that my acknowledging a change in player affects my vote is some sort of unseen-before crazy play based on “zero added information” is absurd in the extreme.
Do I need to again add the additional explanation that this is a “rule of thumb”? If there were some moderator-confirmed information out there or something like that it could affect this rule of thumb.
- At this point, we have no in-game confirmed information.
Here’s the thing about that: The only thing you know in-game for sure is stuff the moderator has said. At this point (with few exceptions) you are going totally of what the player says.
To then turn around - after the player has changed - and suggest that changing a vote must represent either some great sea-change in thinking or reveals a scum “inconsistency” is absurd in the extreme.
- In contrast, if you think my reasoning is absurd or illogical, consider if I were subbed out now and the incoming player said something like:
[paraphrase]As best I can tell, the main reason for the votes on ushi now on me were for his poor play. Please don’t hold that against me.[/paraphrase]
Oh, wait. That happened.
- I’m not sure how to navigate these waters, but my vote was based on words and actions from the player.
So, in that sense the vote was “personal” - if a certain interaction hadn’t gone a certain way a certain player wouldn’t be on my radar, so I never would have voted for them. I don’t think this should come as a shock, because that’s really all there is to go on at this point.
It doesn’t mean that the vote was sterile logic devoid of personal reasons, as I am a human being and not an automaton.
It means it wasn’t “personal” in the sense of saying, casting a vote against someone for no reason other than not liking them or their favorite sports team.
Note that others voted the same way before I did, were those votes “personal” as well?
If you think on this, you’ll see this is really just a restatement of sorts of the first point.
===
A question:
It is my understanding there is a scum board where they discuss strategy. Do they so during Game Days as well, or only Game Nights?
I was just baffled by the 2 votes for Cookies without anyone mentioning Red Skeezix. My ping meter didn’t go off for any of you. All of the arguments seemed like town and that included Cookies who was receiving the votes. I wanted to point out the unfairness of the situation. Yes I know Red and Cookies votes were different, but only subtly. They were definitely close enough for Red to merit mention.
The only ping that I had was on Meeko and he explained what he was saying.
Vote Pleonast
You need to take back your vote on Suburban Plankton. I think it’s been sufficiently explained why he would make that comment based on information in THIS thread alone.
The issue I have, is that I can’t fully gauge your comments. You say you are a noob, and that’s fine, I will give you the benefit of that doubt.
I just wonder if you aren’t also a noob scum. I will not give you the benefit of that doubt.
I can’t tell where the split is, but I don’t want the entire thing to pass by.
I don’t want to come across too heavy handed, IIRC, I prefaced it as such.
I was letting you know in general and specifically why I was FOSing.
Also wanted to put feelers out on the entire thing.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were not a new player; you’ve stated that you are and there is no discussion on that point as far as I’m concerned.
I see two reasonable assumptions that can be drawn from reading your posts in this game.
- You’re playing “like a newbie” simply because you are in fact “a newbie”.
- You’re playing “like a newbie” because you are being coached to know exactly how “a newbie” is expected to play.
It’s *possible *that you’re Scum and your Scum buddies are “helping” you to post the way you are, in hopes that you’ll get a pass on some behavior simply because you’re new and “don’t know any better”. But all things considered, I think it’s more likely that you are in fact simply making the same “mistakes” that all of us make the first time we are thrown into the lion’s den, so to speak.
To expand a bit on my first statement here, we do have sort of a code here that says nobody lies about real life stuff. That is, anyone can say anything they want about anything ‘in game’, you can lie through your teeth and out your rear end, but when it comes to ‘out of game’ things, there are no questions asked. So when you said this is your first game, that meant this is your first game. Period. End of discussion.
I hope I’m making sense.
Until a sub is announced in the game thread, conjecture about anything that came before that announcement post with respect to the act of substitution is outside of the game in my book, ergo metagaming. Such as the question of whether the mod told the scum specific details about a substitution before the rest of the game. It isn’t blatant metagaming like looking at board activity timestamps, or flat-out refusing to believe that Peeker could be a Mason because he’s been a Mason for the past 1827 games, but it still involves information that is outside of the game. Yes the Moderator is technically part of the game, but not everything the Moderator does is part of the game. I’ve never really thought about it this much before, but the general idea of Moderators sharing specific information (“I’m working on getting Scuba in as a sub” vs “I’m working on getting a sub”) with different factions at different times parses to me as sub-par moderating as well, for just the reason that was being proposed. Give someone even a narrow and brief window of additional PIS and they might very well hang themselves with it, which just makes the game less fun for me.
Onto ‘personality metagaming’ with respect to newbies…
I don’t know ushi very well, so I would rather avoid trying to determine how his personality might be affecting his play and stick to the cold hard facts. Whether or not he is a stubborn person is technically outside the game, and even when I’ve played enough with someone to be fairly confident that they have a certain personality trait, I prefer not to base my play on other factors first and only fall back on that insight as a last resort. Since I don’t even have that insight to fall back on in this case, whether or not ushi might be stubborn is not something I’d prefer to base my decision on right now.
Please see:
While their explanation is possible, I have no independent verification. Do you? Thus, my suspicion is mitigated but not eliminated. Before the end of the Day, I’ll read through again see if someone else looks more suspicious. And change my vote accordingly.
Simply put, I keep my vote on who I find most suspicious.
Thinking about it further, I also admit to having somewhat of a double standard about emotions in these games, because I’m more comfortable with providing people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to emotional stuff than I am with including emotional stuff as a evidence that someone is scum.
I want to be clear that I’m specifically focusing on ushi’s apparent policy to give subs a free pass despite finding their predecessor suspicious enough to vote for, and not any of the other stuff. I’m conciously resisting any impulse about trying to back that up or dismiss it based on whether or not he’s a stubborn person.
There’s no hard and fast rule on this; it’s up to the Mod of each particular game. Sometimes it’s spelled out explicitly in the game rules, and other times it is not. For this game, Mahaloth said
So the “good guys” can only strategize during the Day (which is the norm), but he doesn’t mention the “bad guys” at all.
It looks like **Meeko **did ask way back at the beginning of the game, but never got an answer. That could mean that **Mahaloth **missed the question, or it could mean that he deliberately chose not to respond.
Only one way to find out…
Mahaloth, can Scum strategize during the Day?
The following is color, pure and simple. Though, it does provide an answer of sort to a question that has now been asked twice. 
**Our heroes are enjoying the free food in the lobby, especially the Bacon Salt on the chips and dip(weird, right?). Conversation is intense, aggressive, and quick.
“I wonder if the NDCE have some way to communicate now, with all of us out i the open?” asked a few people.
“Like what…telepathy or something?” asked another.
There was an awkward silence within the crowd of Heroes.
“I guess we don’t know for sure. I mean, how can we?” said another.
The loud speaker crackled. “No kidding, zeroes,” said the voice…sighing yet again.**
…
I really don’t get this. And I don’t get all the people who voted for Plankton, and then backed off when he posted an explanation. Again, what did you think he was going to say? “Yes, you’re right, I heard that ScubaBen was subbing in on the Scum board?” Of course he was going to say some variant on what he actually said, whether true or not. Frankly, the rapidity with which a few people backed off Plankton entirely on the basis of his entirely predictable (albeit not necessarily untruthful) defense has me thinking that at least some of those people might not have been terribly genuine in their suspicion to begin with. Which, in turn, piques my interest in those folks.
Also, Wolverine, I am still voting for Plankton as well; why did you vote for Pleonast over me?