Speaking of bandwagons…
Well, not bandwagons per se but waves of voting. Heavily split voting favors the mafia, it makes it really easy for them to crown a “winner.” One off votes have their place early in the day but, as the day comes to an end, we should consider being more focused. Sadly (from the perspective of this argument) there is no clear division between the front runners and the also rans but we should still keep this in mind in the next 19 hours or so.
It does?
See, I was thinking that this was a good thing, since it would become obvious down the line who had kept votes off of scum. Like, with such factionalized voting patterns, the significance of each vote is more clear, I thought, because you don’t have a whole bunch of people all in the same boat (I’m going to see how many straight posts can contain a nautical reference). Is that not normally how it ends up working?
To some extent yes, but my fear is that, even if there are currently 3 votes against a mafia member, it will take an utterly trivial effort to pump their opponents’ 3 up to 4 and save them. I also think that certain players are just sticking with their votes and coasting when, at this point, it should be expected that they would at least consider changing (pedescribe and BillMC for example, given that meeko is looking very innocent and we have 4(?) new cases today).
We have 3-5 mafia in this game, probably 4. That’s a lot of voting power, and i think town sometimes overlooks that.
I hear you. At the very least, though, I think that it’s a meaningful data point for each of the two you mentioned (for instance) if they are comfortable keeping their votes where they are. Matter of fact, pedescribe keeping his vote where it is is one reason why I’m keeping mine where it is for the moment.
I understand where you are coming from here. But in the long run, does this thinking really help Town?
Further, Mahaloth is dangling “in case of a tie” over our head. He has been less than clear on what would happen if we had a tie.
WIFOM : it will not be handled in the “normal” way, if we have a tie. Last count I saw, we had three players with three votes on them, each.
Do we want to risk seeing the tie-break mechanic, over simply showing good faith over a first day vote, among two people who probably will not gather 3 more votes on their character?
NETA : I was talking about the count at #406, not the count at #426.
Good point, I’d rather not find out the hard way the Mahaloth takes a dim view of ties. Also Jimmy: I see your point about pedescribe.
Important note:
The following players have not voted (number indicates their post count from shadow’s list):
Oredigger - 16
Imaginary Fiend - 6
Paulwhoisaghost - 5
Storyteller - 5
Not voting denies town information. It’s time to settle down and start casting. Especially Imaginary, your neck is on the line today and the totals are close.
Current vote totals (I think):
Meeko(2) : Pedescribe, BillMC,
Pedescribe(2) : Jimmy, CardinalFang
Ichini(3): Chronos, Zeriel, AllWalker
Imaginary Fiend(3): Tom Scud, Telcontar, Nanook
Tom Scud (1): Ichini
Telcontar(1): ShadowFacts
BillMC(1): Meeko
In the short run, maybe, but really all they can accomplish in the short run is to get a Townie lynched toDay (and a Townie getting lynched on Day 1 is pretty likely anyway). But if the Scum are taking an active hand in manipulating the votes, then that makes them that much easier to find in the future. It’s easy for a Scum to vote for Scum to gain townie cred when it won’t change the outcome anyway, but if there’s a close race between a Scum and a Town, then the Scum are forced to choose between saving their teammate and gaining Town cred.
Well, to be fair, I had a vote placed on Meeko so I have voted. I’m not denying any information as I’ve been voting with my suspicions as I go along. Right now there are a couple of cases that look ok but none of them are really convincing. I’m going to do a full reread tonight/tomorrow morning and make my final vote then.
There won’t be a tie unless somebody forces it. If it comes down to it I’ll change my vote to be the tiebreaker.
I’ll vote, but I’m not ready to do so yet.
Meeko, we definitely do NOT want to force a tie. Most of the outcomes that are possible are either firmly anti-Town (a no-lynch, for example) or at best indifferent (a runoff). What’s more, determining now to force a tie absolves everyone in the game of any responsibility to actually think through the vote - you’ll get lots of votes or non-votes justified by “well, we need to preserve the tie.”
For my part, I’m not going to vote for Meeko. I need to do a more in-depth re-read and consider the cases against the remaining candidates.
I don’t really feel like there’s a strong case for anyone yet. We’ve had a lot of derailments and finger-pointing, though. I was disinclined to make a vote against Tom Scud in my rebuttal in order to preserve the integrity of the statements I made, but if I’m under the gun, I’m voting for him.
Two reasons: First, Tom strikes me as a balanced, analytical person from his numerous posts. I’m not convinced that he isn’t aware of and actively capitalizing on hindsight bias. He seems to be pushing it pretty hard on his posts to both Ichini and I. Second, Tom has distorted my statements to intimate that I was somehow being inconsistent with my argument. Such a distortion might be a rhetorical tool to help build his case, but it remains dishonest. As I have made clear previously, I tend to view dishonesty as the tool of the Scum.
Call it childish, but in the absence of a real argument against anyone, my gut tells me that Tom’s attack on those who were against name claiming is calculated. I really want to avoid the perception that I’m finger-pointing because Tom voted for me earlier and I’d like to vote for someone else if a case could be presented, but if time is an issue that’s where I stand.
Vote: Tom Scud
Hmm…at this point, meeko’s case on me is looking more and more like a typical early-Day 1 case.
Unvote Meeko
Off to reread, at which point I will vote again.
It’s a fine point. Certainly, we can reasonably assume that the scum would have immeadeatly seen the danger in a mass name claim, and either kept quiet, hoping it would blow over, or vocally argued against it, hoping to kill it. However, it was not immediately obvious that such a tactic was good for the town. Meaning, while the people who advocated it have protown points, and the people who argued against it have pro-scum points, the people who kept silent do not necessarily get pro-scum points.
Um…what the hell? Is this, like, a joke comment, or what? Why does it sound vaguely threatening? And what was it even supposed to mean in the first place?
On the other hand, you have to factor in that if the scum move in such a coordinated manner, it would be obvious in a few Days’ time. Meaning that such a voting situation, while dangerous in the late game, is not particularly dangerous in the early game.
Aside from all that, I’m really convinced by the case on Imaginary Fiend. Mainly the hyperbole aspect to it. Colorful language (in both senses of the term) tend to come out when the player is stressed or really concerned about the outcome. Given that mass claims are a bitch to organize even when it’s obviously pro-town, I don’t see that kind of concern coming from a Power Role IF, or a Vanilla IF.
Vote Imaginary Fiend
(on my “elephant in the room” comment)
Sorry, I was trying to talk to Meeko. It got me a little punchy.
I just have to say that I’m very suspicious of both folks currently voting for Tom Scud. Granted, it wasn’t immediately obvious to Town that a mass name-claim would hurt Scum, but it would have been immediately obvious to Scum. If Tom were Scum, then he wouldn’t have wanted a mass name-claim, and certainly wouldn’t have brought the possibility onto the table.
As it stands, I’m already voting for one of those two people, so I don’t see a reason to change that.
I realized from later posts that this might have been read as me making a case AGAINST Ichimi. I did not mean it to be read that way.
I meant “Ichimi’s case against ME”, which pretty much rests on the idea that my advocacy of a name-claim was scummy.
NETA: IchiNi, duh.
I don’t know. I’ve been following that case pretty closely since it was brought up, and I was thinking kind of the opposite: Fiend’s language was SO “colorful” that he’d have to be a pretty ballsy scum to come out that hard against it. If I were scum and the claim idea scared me (which I think we all agree now it must have since the rules were changed), I would probably have avoided talking about it at all and hope it blew over, not shout “NO!” like Annakin Skywalker. But that gets us into “scum wouldn’t do that” territory, which is rarely fruitful.
Also, Fiend’s reaction to the case on him has not made him look any less suspicious, so I remain torn. I’m going to keep my vote where it is for now. I need to review some of the other candidates and see if those cases look strong.
Ah, I’d missed that you’d voted (was working off the current vote totals only). Sorry about that. Mostly I was afraid of people forgetting to vote or thinking it didn’t matter.
vote count?