Why?
At a guess, Chuchara thinks he misjudged Macey so badly that maybe he’s wrong about Thing Fish too.
I approve of caution in voting. Unlike some others, I’m not going to cast a vote because someone used the indefinite article instead of the definite article (or vice versa - I can’t remember which way round it was). I’m also not going to cast a knee-jerk vote; not after dumping on Zeriel in the Skrull Planet game when he slipped up with 30 minutes before the end of the Day and went from zero votes to lynched by a clear majority.
This means that I am vulnerable to long board outages that occur late in a Day; in this case because the board went down just after I started a reread of the Day 1 thread at about 2:40 (give or take a few minutes).
I don’t know (now) who I would have voted for had I completed my reread.
I was in much the same vote–the SDMB outage was right in the middle of prime playing time for me, and didn’t end until well after “Zeriel, come help wrap the Christmas presents OR ELSE dear, would you please?” from my wife.
So there one has it. My gut reread feel was on Chucara, but he’s been a bit less single-track in the latter half of the day, so I’m going to look at some of the votes on macey and see if I can’t ferret out some scum probabilities in there.
Awesome!!
:D:D:D
Yay! I can’t believe we got away with that on Day 1. I wonder how the board outage affected the voting. A lot of last-minute votes may have been prevented…or not. Maybe that’s why the scum couldn’t save macey?
Of course, by then, macey had nine votes, so it’s really unlikely that anything would have worked without being uber-suspicious.
I’m sure some scum voted for macey–it’s a good place to hide–but it seems likely that we’ll find other scum either not voting or keeping their vote on someone else. Just sitting in place, worried about looking like they’re trying to save macey.
From what I’m reading, I’m sure I’ll come under fire for being a late voter for macey, but what can I say? I was asleep the entire time he was getting the earlier votes! And his fishing was definitely a scum tell. No one else, suspicious or not, had anything as damning against them.
Forgot to comment on this–if anyone has a special role that does something to get rid of 80% dead people, please keep it quiet! If macey doesn’t go away in a couple of days, we can come up with other things to do to him.
[quote=“JSexton, post:220, topic:477854”]
.
Argh. If you doubt macey is scum, why vote for him? To teach him a lesson? That sort of vote loses games, and is a common tactic for scum to take to vote for town without taking responsibility for it.
QUOTE]
(the above is a response to my statement that I doubted Macey was scum).
First, I *didn’t *vote for him, I voted for Pleonast, who I thought was much more likely to be scum.
But since at the time I posted it looked like Macey was likely to hang, I thought I should chime in with an opinion on the lynch, just to give Town more information about my thought processes. I can’t really explain why I thought that would be good, other than on the general principle that information = pro-Town. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about whether that was a useful, unhelpful, or just irrelevant thing for me to say.
Second, as I said, I agree with what Hawkeye and others have said, that anti-Town behavior should be punished.
Third, with regard to my statement that I doubted he was scum, this is a semantic issue. I just meant that I thought he was less likely to be scum than not. I assume that everyone has approximately a 25% chance of being scum to start with, and adjust from there as the game goes on. So, early in the game, although the goal is obviously to pick the most scummy-looking person, it would be rare for me to be so confident as to say anyone is probably scum. I certainly thought macey was in the group of those who had enough evidence against them to be reasonable vote-targets. Hence, although I doubted he was scum (I estimated his chance of scumminess at <50%), I was fine with the lynch (I thought he looked scummier than most).
In the last game storyteller modded, Strongman was used to indicate a role that could pull off an extra kill for the scum. The term “Prince of Blades” seems to back up this idea. However, it has been used for other roles, such as a role that can survive a kill.
Here’s my case: Thing Fish voted for me using logic I couldn’t understand, then switched his vote while implying there were only two viable candidates. I find this scummy. :shrugs:
It’s not exactly a strong case, but it’s the strongest I’ve found, so
Vote Thing Fish
One more thing: My opinion on the A/B status–it doesn’t matter. It’s just there to provide color to the setting, and to add some WIFOM to this already eerie game.
Nice!!
But, like others have said, that was almost too easy. Of course if the board hadn’t gone down, macey could have had time for a fake role claim and chaos could have ensued. The board outage may have been a good thing.
I’ll be looking close at the late bandwagon voters as well. But, then again, if I were scum I would probably do my best to keep my fellow scummies out of the noose. Only voting for them to cover my ass when it was apparent that there was no saving them.
It’s very possible that no scum did vote for macey just because the board was down at the time that they would have.
I’ll have very limited (if any ) internet acess for the next 4 days. I’ll be back Sat night.
No, I didn’t. I did say that I thought the several people who already had voted for you made some good points, but I myself never voted for you. As far as what I allegedly implied, I’ve already explained several times that I didn’t mean what people have read into it, and I don’t see how people could reasonably think that I did. But if that’s how you read it, that’s how you read it.
So much for “scum would never do that”.
As far as the low-low volume posters go (i.e., the ones that haven’t really showed up to post yet) I’m not too worried about them. If they go without posts too long Storyteller will just replace and/or modkill them anyway.
amrussel, the reason Thing Fish fell under suspicion was to suggest that the lynch pool was only two candidates (in fact, his words were remarkably similar to yours :dubious: ), but don’t take our word for it, read Day One for yourself.
NETA: sorry for not bleaching.
OK, it seems that I am the vote leader because of saying the following two things:
Post 80: “Seems like we have two candidates so far”. Total Lost jumped on me for that in post 102, and I responded thusly in 109:
"Total and special, I don’t know what the hell you are thinking. At the time I logged on, feeling that it was late enough in the Day that it was important to get some kind of vote on record, there were exactly two people who had votes on them. How does observing that fact constitute a scum slip?
And I did not say, nor is it true, that I had some principle compelling me to vote for someone who already had votes on them. However, although I did mention a certain level of suspicion on a third party, Chucara.. It so happens that I thought both “candidates” were in fact worthy of reasonable Day One-type suspicion, and I said so, then cast my vote for the one I thought scummiest. What part of that seems scummy to you?"
Total’s post 111 appears to be a response to the above (although she doesn’t specifically quote it), and she just restates her original misinterpretation without acknowledging anything that I had said. This prompted me to post a substantially identical but louder and more annoyed defense in post 170.
The other thing that people have voted for me for was in my post 173:
“Will try to get a reread in before Dusk, but I’m still reasonably happy with my vote where it is (Pleonast), particularly now that we are provisionally assuming that the guy he was trying to drive the wagon on was in fact Town”.
OK, the “driving the wagon” comment was ill-considered and smudgy, and I can’t blame people for being pinged by it. In retrospect, I think what was going on there was that I was trying to make myself feel better about leaving my vote where it was, when the real reason I was leaving my vote where it was was that I couldn’t find time to do the re-read I wanted to.
**Pleo **quickly jumped on me for that in post 176, and then I replied in post 182:
"But to clarify, I view **Ped’s **presumed-Town-for-now status as at best a *small *point supporting my vote on you. "
However, Pleo then proceeded to respond in post 188 as though his vote on Pedescribe had been the only reason I gave to support my vote on him, entirely disregarding the other reasons I had given back when I originally placed the vote.
So that’s the case against me, as far as I can tell. I certainly hope that the people voting for me based on that are not feeling so good about it that they will not be looking for better candidates.
And now to restate my case against Pleonast:
I have four (well, three and a half) major points, the first two of which I outlined in post 80. Having read my post above, I will italicize quotes from old posts to make for easier reading:
*This is from the old thread (and BTW, I am not seeing the advantage of having separate threads for each Day/Night cycle):
230 - Chucara posts her idea about everyone claiming fake targets. (I think this idea is sufficiently anti-Town to cast some suspicion on her as well, BTW).
231- Pleonast offers the first of several objections to the idea.
233- Rapier42 supports the idea.
238 - Pleonast votes Rapier42 for supporting the idea (why not vote Chucara for having suggested it in the first place?)
241 (12 realtime minutes later) - Pleonast comes out in favor of the idea! And keeps his vote on Rapier42!
The other piece of damning evidence I see against Pleonast is his smudge of Pedescribe for “ignoring him”. I know he explained it later, but I read it exactly the way Ped did originally and thought at the time it seemed very smudgy.*
Pleo responded in 85:
*My comments:
238–suggesting ideas, even bad ideas, is not anti-Town.
241–I did not come out favor of the same idea. I kept my vote on Rapier for the reason I stated then “to see what the official vote looks like”. *
I replied in post 94. Here is Pleonast’s 119, which quotes post 94 in its entirety. My comments are interspersed in bold.
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
Suggesting anti-Town ideas is anti-Town. Not all anti-Town actions are done by scum, but anyone taking an action for which obvious scum motivation exists deserves to be looked at closely.
Pleo: I maintain that suggesting ideas is never anti-Town. We need to encourage Townies to be creative, to think of ways of increase our information. Voting for players because of their ideas is ultimately counterproductive, because we will end up with only quiet players afraid to share.
On the other hand, I agree anti-Town actions must be punished. But please distinguish talk from action. Suggesting an idea is not an action–it’s increasing the information pool we’re working from.
So note that we are completely sidetracked here. He is responding to my parenthetical comment wondering why he didn’t vote for Chucara, completely ignoring the main point, which is that he voted for someone for supporting an idea, then came out in favor of the same idea himself 12 minutes later!
Me:
It is true that you came out in favor of a slightly amended version of the idea, which still has serious flaws (Natlaw pointed out one example of such in post 244) in that it could give scum information about other power roles as well as the investigator.
Pleo:
Well, yes, but all actions have risks. Recognizing that an action has negative consequences is not enough to make it a bad idea. We must also consider the benefits. And ways that the drawbacks and benefits can be reduced.
Nice abstract concepts. Very hard to argue with. No mention whatsoever of why he thought the risk/benefit ratio of the slightly altered version of the idea was so much better than the original that he would pull the turnaround that he did.
Me:
Pleonast, could you please go into some more detail on your thought process that led you to quickly vote Pedescribe for that slip, and what about his response led you to unvote him? I think I can figure out what you were thinking, but I’d like to hear it from you.
Pleo:
I think I stated earlier why I commented on the slip (whatever his alignment, it’s something the whole Town should know, so that we can better react to it). As to why I voted–it was to apply pressure and to get the attention of other players. And then I withdrew my vote, once I read his explanation. It seemed reasonable. Yeah, he could be a Deadite who talks smooth, but I think it’s not enough to lynch him now.*
I’m going to compose a whole other post about this one. But his whole post is just tap dancing around saying nothing at great length.
So, as mentioned in my above post, I was feeling unsure of myself as I was nearing the end of the time I would be able to play before Dusk. This insecurity led to me making the ill-considered and smudgy comment about Pleo driving the wagon. But his response to it in 188 makes me feel more confident than ever that he’s scum.
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish
It is not exactly unheard of for scum to try to draw attention to a Townie, then unvote once the train gets rolling.
Pleo:So you’re voting for me because a scum might do what I did? That’s an extremely weak reason.
vote Thing Fish
Me:
This acheives the scum goal of getting a Townie lynched without having to be accountable for having voted to lynch a Townie. So your behavior with regard to that train certainly does not excuse you from suspicion, and your even trying to claim that it does adds to that suspicion.
Pleo:
Merely voting for someone first is not driving a train. (And I think I may have unvoted him before anyone else voted for him.) It has been other players who pushed him to claim. Why do you choose to vote for me when others are greatly more culpable?*
Twice in a couple paragraphs, he gloms onto my “driving the train” comment and tries to paint it as the only reason I was voting for him, rather than the “small point” I had already described it as in post 182. At this point, I believe I had 4 votes to his 1, so it can’t be that he was feeling threatened and lost his cool. Looks like a classic case of deliberate scummy misinterpretation to me.
My last half point won’t be useful to anyone else until and unless I am confirmed as Town. But since I know I’m Town, I view the timing of his vote for me in 188 (which made the vote macey 6, me 4) as highly consistent with a scum attempt to save macey. I’m also very suspicious of Chucara and peeker for jumping in to vote for me at about the same time.
I agree this isn’t a good explanation. Pleonast says the ‘reveal last night target’ makes it more difficult for scum to role claim and calls for action by writing he is in favor in bold.
The plan doesn’t work because power roles would have to lie as well to avoid detection by scum.
His early votes seem to be his play style, so I don’t think that doesn’t tell us anything. His excuse for not unvoting Rapier42 (actually pedescribe) I believe, because he gave the reason at the time, not afterward.
Because of that, your calling him ‘driving the bandwagon’ is more a mark against you, Thing Fish.
BTW, you’re Jerry and peekercpa unvoted you? Chucara did the same - JSexton called me out doing the same during Day One.
Chucara hedged his vote with a ‘best I can do on the first Day’, while of course peeker is in a merry mood, ready to forgive all :p.
Though he might be trying to drown his Evil Deadite demon inside, which is upset having to celebrate Christmas and listen to children play classical music…
Merry Christmas all!
I’m at home so will be checking in, except for Saturday - I hope I’m still alive then :).
No, Jerry is the technical wizard whose job is to keep the board from going offline for hours at a time at critical moments of Mafia games (actually, the bit about Mafia probably isn’t technically in his job description, but it should be). peeker was making a little joke.
I don’t know what to make of **Chucara’s **unvote, but viewing it through the lens of suspicion, one could hypothesize that he risked making a vote he couldn’t defend well in order to save his pal macey, and then tried to back away discreetly from it once that failed. Or maybe he just dislikes the votes-automatically-carrying-over mechanism and wanted to start fresh. Or maybe he reread the thread and decided I wasn’t suspicious after all. Maybe he will tell us?
Although I’m obviously happy to be unvoted, one thing that I kept noticing while reading the scum rout that was SDMB Mafia was that Town was letting people get away with very poorly explained votes and unvotes. I hope that won’t happen here.
People have been trying to get me to shut up for 32 and a half years now with little success. So don’t get your hopes up.
I keep forgetting that this merry band of mafia has just partially overlapping orbits. We have this group, the one on Idle’s board and now, the newest kids on the block, (at least for me) the ones on FB. For me, it’s either here or the “offboard” site (Idle’s). Guess I’ll have to be clearer in the future since it seems the crossover is becoming significant. Matter of fact if you FB’ers will have me I might even play over there.
On Idle’s site there was some discussion about this board’s downage. I unvoted Thing Fish over there and voted Jerry to “light a fire under his butt” in getting this board up and running. Coincidentally the Dope came right back up (well kind of). So it seemed to work. Apparently Jerry was monitoring that site and realized the level of mortal danger he was in.
Mod question: Does my unvote of Thing Fish on that board count? I mean you did say that we could post whatever wherever whenever?
And now, the last entry in my afternoon postravaganza, inspired by Pleonast’s statement quoted above:
I think I stated earlier why I commented on the slip (whatever his alignment, it’s something the whole Town should know, so that we can better react to it). As to why I voted–it was to apply pressure and to get the attention of other players. And then I withdrew my vote, once I read his explanation. It seemed reasonable. Yeah, he could be a Deadite who talks smooth, but I think it’s not enough to lynch him now.
I’m specifically not citing this as part of my case against Pleonast, because this sort of thing seems to be too common to be a scumtell, but it annoys me. special ed did the same thing with his quickie vote/unvote of me, for instance.
I don’t like this business of “I voted for him to see his reaction”. In my experience, the reaction you can expect approximately 100% of the time is defensive hostility. I guess some people think their scumdar is finely attuned enough to distinguish Townie defensive hostility from scummy faux-defensive hostility, and maybe they can. My concern is that acceptance of this kind of tactic leads to lack of accountability for votes and makes it easy for scum.
For instance, I suspect that Pleo’s vote, and subsequent unvote on the too-vague-to-be-debated ground that “it seemed reasonable”, may have been motivated by an effort to draw suspicion to Pedescribe while avoiding responsibility for doing so. Whether it was or not, the fact that his explanation was widely accepted will encourage scum to do the same sort of thing in the future.
I do agree with what **Pleo **said above that we need to distinguish between talk and action (to the extent we can do so in what is, after all, a text-based game). But votes are actions. Keeping track of people’s votes and their explanations for them is one of the most powerful tools available to Town. I think Town would be better off if we created a culture in which voting was taken seriously and people weren’t allowed to avoid responsibility for their votes with vague excuses about “judging reactions.”
End of rant. Merry Christmas to those of you, Happy Hanukkah to NAF and any of my other co-tribalists out there, and nondenominational good vibes to the rest of you.