And now I see that while I was distracted with more discussion of Dracula there was potentially a big break. It looks like a slip, and smells like a slip, but I hesitate to definitively call it a slip(yet) for two reasons. One, it was storyteller. He strikes me as too experienced, both as scum and as town, to make such an obvious mistake. Two, three scum really? That seems a bit low for a game like this, though it could be balanced depending on what power roles are actually present in the game. So I’m ready, willing and able to move my vote, but I would like to hear a response from story beyond the throwaway line he gave so far before I do so. While we wait for that, I’ll go ahead and
Yup, that helps to clarify a few things, I think I set the bar slightly higher when dealing with game related posts.
I may have been otherwise occupied at the time, but I don’t remember you being as snarky then as now.
It was not that you were voting for a low poster that was the issue, it was the fact you gave a free pass to someone that I found to be wrong. Whether you consider your justification correct or not.
Sorry, I think I missed the question.
My stance on voting is this: Your vote is your mark on how you play this game. I really hate the people who start saying “Votes are cheap, we can happily move them around from scummy person to scummy person” because it cheapens votes to the point of being unable to do much in the way of analysis on them.
I consider random votes as useless and a waste of time, with the same going for lurker voting as well. Votes should be placed for a reason and the justification given at the time. Using a mechanical or random method to place votes is a scummy way out of having to provide any reasoning for why you are playing in a certain way.
Yes, Day 1 is to some extent random in itself, but there is still no reason to vote in those ways. If you are going to vote for someone, vote with a reason.
I’m not sure what further response I can make. I cut out two sentences from my initial draft, and neglected to add a clause to the remaining sentence when I did. It was an error, which I’ve corrected.
I’d say exactly the same thing if I were scum, unfortunately, so there’s not much else to be done about it. I’d vote for me, if I didn’t know my own role.
I’m not sure what response you could make either to be honest. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this isn’t good enough for me. It seems it was a true slip.
Sorry guys, didn’t get much time to catch up yesterday, but I’ll definitely get caught up today unless work really gets in the way.
I’m unsure if any of this has been addressed ahead of this post, but I want to mention this now. I like Storyteller’s idea about enforcing a policy of bitees claiming immediately at dawn. The disadvantage to this, of course, is that this forces us into a bad bad situation, because there’s no reason for scum to turn in Dracula to the town as soon as the scout finds him. This forces us, as town, to make a lynch that isn’t really a mislynch, but isn’t really the best lynch, as Dracula is essentially equivalent to a PFK from Batman. That is, he is someone that has to die and is to the advantage of either side to kill, but is a better advantage if one side can get the other side to kill that person for us.
So, to try and solve this, I present one of my lovely mindgames for the scum. It is to the advantage of Dracula to out a Wolf if he falsely claims that Dracula bit him. Here’s how I see it working. Dracula’s best chance of winning is to avoid detection, thus by putting a threat against the Wolves, the only way for the Wolves to out him would be to trade one of their own. This, in turn, either forces the Wolves, upon detection, to either kill him themselves, which Dracula can’t avoid anyway, or not kill him, which essentially reduces his detectability to just the detective and his victims.
This is also to the town’s advantage because we won’t have to worry about a wolf claiming he was bitten and having a conflict with Dracula claiming he didn’t bite him. This means the wolves won’t be able to force us to lynch him for them without trading one of their own and if someone DOES actually call him out, it’s likely because they’re telling the truth because they won’t have anything to risk in doing so.
Thus, this makes Dracula actually enough of a threat to the wolves that they’re probably better off just taking him out themselves if they find him and not trying to get us to lynch him instead.
I don’t think Blaster Master’s analysis properly accounts for Dracula’s motivation. I see no reason to think Dracula won’t lie and denounce a bitten townie who betrays him as the scout. I don’t think we can assign particular reasoning processes to Dracula as the role is pretty much fucked. Dracula could do any number of things none of which can be motivated by achieving his win-condition. Motives are more likely to be personal or “just-for-kicks.”
Sure. Dracula’s only chance of winning is to stay alive for as long as possible. Dracula can not only be expected to deny biting someone who claims, but also to deny being Dracula at all.
My thoughts on storyteller:
I’ve been debating storyteller’s mis-post in my head for the past hour. On one side, I think scummy storyteller wouldn’t be so careless to post such a thing. I know that as Town, I’m more likely to be hasty than when I was scum and I re-read my posts several times.
On the other hand, storyteller says that he made edits to a draft which resulted in the muffed post. Therefore, storyteller was being cautious in his posting, yet he allowed the mistake to go through. I don’t know how to reconcile this. I’m leaning towards scum slip.
On a side note: I find storyteller’s phrasing kind of weird. Usually I think of Town being on a mis-lynch count. That is, Town has x number of mis-lynches before they lose. Phrasing the lynch requirements as Town needs to lynch correctly 3-5 times just sounds unwieldy to me. But maybe that’s just me. Doesn’t speak to storyteller’s status, I just thought it was odd.
You make an excellent point about PIS, that it isn’t usually something obvious, but the logic just doesn’t follow here. Let’s say you’re right that she has extra knowledge that would make her think this. As you point out, it’s really only over-powered IF there are five wolves. So you’re basically saying that she may have this opinion because she has special knowledge that there are five wolves. But that just doesn’t make sense because it’s incredibly unbalanced for there to be five wolves AND have a scout.
IOW, I can only see it as stinking of PIS IF we’re in a highly improbable situation to begin with. Because, if it’s a scount amongst 4 wolves, that’s probably much along what the rest of us would have guessed anyway, meaning it’s only alluding to information she may have assumed rather than information she actually has.
I knew I missed something in that last post. I meant to go over motivation. There is no motivation for Fretful Porpentine to talk about the scout at all, except because she’s trying to appear townie. As scum, she should know that any comments as to whether there is or is not one is purely a WIFOM scenario. Meanwhile, a townie motivation is to just say what she thinks. From a motivational analysis perspective, the Fretful Porpentine “I don’t think there’s a scout” comment is at worst a null tell, probably a slight townie tell.
Anyway, this is enough for me to find some suspicion in storyteller at least until I’ve caught up, so I’ll go ahead and put my vote there.
Wait, what? That’s exactly the point I was making in the first place. If she knows there are five Wolves, then she knows that a Scout would be overpowered in that situation. I don’t understand your objection to my objection.
Ah, well. It wouldn’t be Mafia without one of us going after the other.
Y’all, I can see where this is leading as well as anybody.
My problem is that I have a stirring all-day training tomorrow (Leadership Development Initiative! 40 hours of Corpra-Speak packed into five fun-filled Wednesdays! Catch the fever!), and rehearsal tonight and tomorrow. What that means is that after 5:00 today, I will be unable to participate until Thursday morning.
Given all of that, I am going to have to make a difficult decision in the next few hours. I don’t suppose any of you will just back off if I say, “trust me,” will you? Yeah, I didn’t think so. I have to think about this.
