Just realized I have a question for Pizza. Your plan suggests that EVERYONE nominate someone by the end of phase one, yet states that a nomination means we are confident that our target is Scum, enough that we won’t back down if there is a tie. Yet I am not yet confident about any one person’s Scum status. Do you propose I vote based on the average Day One whim and then stick to my guns come hell or high water? Doesn’t that seem rash?
First: I’m willing to follow Pizza’s plan for now as well. If nothing else, it seems like an organized way to play this. Then again, I don’t expect it to last long (call me cynical).
Second, I will
vote orthohedron
for his insistently “I’m a newbie” posts (which I quoted). Seems like a lot of noise and not enough substance so far.
In a game with a TexCat, I just count on her to take my notes for me. I’ll just handle my sweet vote charts.
In seriousness, my notes are generally ridiculously convoluted based on whatever catches my whim. I’m always glad when someone has a more structured method, and shares.
Also, I’d like to add a second (third?) to Storyteller’s nomination. Babale is looking like a better-than-random lynch. I’ll see if this feeling persists in future phases, and if it does I’ll back that up with a vote.
It was me as scum acting how I’d act as townie, which would be to make helpful and positive suggestions.
I’ll also note I fleshed out the idea between games and revealed the full idea after another game was over and I wasn’t scum in any games. In other words this is how I really believe we should act as townies, and the framework is intended to get our “should” closer to our “how it is”.
Let’s pretend I’m scum, for the sake of argument. How does my idea help scum?
Would me being scum make the idea bad for town? Or does the idea have its own town-positive merits?
It’s sort of like pretending to be a detective and outing my own scum partner. Would my being scum mean we shouldn’t lynch my scum partner?
Scum often play with intent to foil town. But they often play to blend in and be the good townie, and sometimes they give out information that is genuinely useful to town, to act town.
If you think of it as guidelines, then there are room for exceptions.
Note that I’ve said things like “be willing to vote for that person in the event of a tie, without strong reason to do otherwise”.
I leave room for behaving outside of the framework. People can, if they choose, behave entirely outside the framework. I just think that most of us should behave within it most of the time, without good reason not to.
It matters not who you are if you smell scumminess by all means bring it up..
you missed the addition of Chucara
[smart ass] I nominate everyone in game because I am not Scum with any of them [/smart ass]
** Pizza ** you remember when you tried to lead a group by the nose in a game and then got all butt hurt when they rebelled? This is pushing it again.
Yes I do realize it was another that grabbed your post from the end game on another board and plopped it here but your LAM hat does not look as attractive on you as you may think.
Really the “plan” is not earth shattering isn’t it basically how we all approach a game ( although the internals of the thought process is not generally posted- mores the pity)
I note that all my suggestion offers is to get votes on record.
Whether townies decide to hold people accountable for their votes is not something I can force through a framework.
We are still playing the game, this is just meant to avoid common town pitfalls and also make it more difficult for scum to pull their usual tricks.
Specifically what the plan accomplishes if people follow it:
No large meaningless bandwagons right away. We acknowledge there are many potential scumbags, not just one, and that being able to discuss and choose from several is superior to randomly wagoning one person per day.
No way for me or others to do what I just did in the previous game, which was cause several wagons and counterwagons, forcing several town power roles to claim early, giving scum the advantage.
Makes intentional lurking more glaringly obvious.
Makes intentional “wait and see” voters stick out more.
Gives a defined time for detective reveals that won’t kill normal point and discuss behavior. Detectives help and hurt town when all we ever do is follow their suggestions. I used detective to scum’s advantage last game because town is weak to their influence. And he was a real town detective too.
Encourages lots more finger-pointing which scum are hesitant to do because that means more scum-on-townie finger pointing and more scum-on-scum finger pointing by rule. Scum prefer to keep their opinions hidden so they don’t have to defend them.
It’s sort of like vaccine against the common scum cold. It doesn’t make us immune to non-conventional tactics nor does it mean we can rest easy and let the framework win the game for us, or that we disconnect our brains and only follow teh rulez.
You can veer over the yellow solid line to avoid an oncoming car. But we still should have the yellow lines on the road.
If you signed up for my Apocalyptic Mafia, Day One has started.
Not really. I rarely full claim at the beginning of a game (my past two games I’ve had the “pleasure” of being third party). My usual method is to soft-claim as vanilla or power role.
A strongly discourage players from making OMGUS votes. First, they’re too personal, and tend to evoke emotional responses rather than convincing reasons to for anyone else to vote for the other. Second, many town players vote for many other town players because of the nature of the game, and an OMGUS simply creates another town-on-town vote. Third, as you mention, an OMGUS is a lazy vote and gives nothing useful for other players to make a decision with. And, as you also mention, OMGUS votes will look bad when many of them are on townies, which is another way of saying it’s a poor reason for a vote.
You are very wrong.
Players can’t avoid accountability by pointing to other votes–every player has to be able to justify and defend each vote they make. The problem is not the multi-vote, it’s the dodge. So we hold players accountable if they try to excuse one vote with another.
Multi-votes do not cancel out. Each player voted for is a player they want to see lynched. And each vote pushes a player closer to being lynched. That a player is voting for the lynch-leader and the runner-up is not a problem. It means they want to see both of them lynched and are taking actions to make that more likely.
Unvoting someone you want to see lynched hurts town. In a single-vote game, it’s a necessary action. But in this game, unvoting a player means you don’t want them lynched.
Multi-votes don’t reduce a player’s decisions or dodge accountability. If you are voting for a player, you want to see them lynched. If you are not voting for them, you do not want to see them lynched. Each vote or lack of vote has to be decided on and accounted for separately.
Essentially when you nominate someone, you are saying exactly this:
I am not scum with Player X. In the event Player X is tied for the lead at the end of today, I will be backing their lynch, not the opposing lynch.
This cuts off the balls of scumbags who would use the nomination to point at their own partner. It encourages them to bus their partners cold, and discourages them from voting to save their own partner.
If townies remember that such behavior will be seen as scummy, and promise the rest of the town they won’t do such a thing, it means any scums performing the move will be instantly recognized as scum, without exception.
You are more than welcome to vote for others and lynch them by end of day. But the framework is asking you to choose one person that, for whatever reason, you are comfortable making dead, and that you won’t try to back down from that without strong reason.
NICE you choose the NETA to comment on but the OP is not worthy of a comment-
I compose my thoughts when I am at work and post them when I have time- if someone says the same thing before I post mine so be it *
** Chucara ** chose to comment on an on- going discussion * without- apparently * the knowledge of previous discussion of same. ** USCD ** echoed my thoughts they appeared to be topical with out being up to speed as it were
It’s not, because I can nominate someone for death, get no vote traction on that nomination all round, and eventually vote for someone who might swing near end of phase. I also probably won’t remove my nomination vote at any point during the round because this game allows multi-voting. I’d need to be specifically convinced to remove it. IOW, with a strong reason to do otherwise.
However, if my nomination gains traction and let’s say, Red Skeezix becomes one of the top lynch candidates for today, I should be encouraged to put my money where my mouth is and make sure my vote stays on that person. I nominated him, after all.
It would be like nominating Barack Obama to be the democratic candidate and then voting for Hillary in the general election. You should vote for your nominee without good reason not to, if your choice has the possibility of being “elected”.
In this game in particular, you should only unvote your nominee if you have completely eliminated them as a suspect somehow during the round.
And I’d suggest that if you ever nominate and then unvote in the same round someone who later dies and flips scum, that’s uh… that’s bad.
I can’t think of a stronger indication of either guilt or lack of townie discipline. Either should be poked at with a sharp stick. That’s either bad townie or obvious scum.
